doctrine and person to bee drawne from Idolaters Haeretiques and Capharnaits Of the first of these three Theodoret saith that those haeretiques made two Christs one below another aboue of whom they say that he had dwelt in many before and at last came downe hither or as others declare it that at last he came and rested in IESVS the Sonne of MARY An haeretical fable indeede which noe man can tell what to make of but wherein is it like to our transubstantiacion these haeretiques make two Christs wee acknowledge but one and the same both in heauen and in the consecrated host Marcus as Irenaeus saith by the helpe of the Diuell through art magique changed the colour of the wine in the cup or chalice which the knights is pleased of himself to call sacramentall into seueral colours The Catholique Priest doth the cleane contrary for the colour and other accidents remayning he changeth the substance of the wine into the Bloud of Christ by the Omnipotent power of almighty God For the Capharnaits they thought they should eate Christ's body peece meale and after the manner of the flesh whereon they feede we receiue Christ whole and entire not in the forme and shape of flesh but of breade and in a spiritual though real manner What likenesse then in all these doctrines with ours to a man in his right witts 7. A third point is of the Supremacy of the Pope which he fetcheth from Phocas Emperour who he saith first gaue it to the Bishop of Constantinople 600. yeares after Christ But to giue vs more antiquity he saith the Gētils were our first founders and benefactors For which he alleadgeth the saying of our Sauiour The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Lordship ouer thē Luc 22.25 and they that exercise authority vpon them are called benefactors Heere he saith we are deriued from bloudsuckers and Gentils vsurping power ouer kings in things spiritual and temporal whereas his doctrine he saith is from Christ Whosoeuer wil be great among you let him be your Minister and whosoeuer wil be chiefe among you let him be your seruant This is his discourse To which I answeare that the knight is egregiously mistaken in saying that Phocas gaue that authority to the Bishop of Constantinople though if hee should haue giuen it or rather attempted to giue that which he could not giue to the Bishop of Constantinople what is that to vs Doe we deriue our Succession from Constantinople was there not a Bishop of Rome and was hee not acknowledged for heade of the Church some hundreds of yeares before euer there was a Bishop of Constantinople or a Constantinople or euen a Constantine himself What then doth he tell vs of the Bishop of Constantinople or Phocas or any such rather the cleane contrary for all true history telleth vs that whereas Iohn that ambitious Bishop of Constantinople vt habetur in ep Pelag. to 1. Conc. would haue had that title of Vniuersall Bishop whereby hee might seeme to aequall the Bishop of Rome though in words he protested neuer to doe any thing against the See Apostolique wherein he had beene supported by Mauritius the Emperour and vpon whom therefore and all his V. Cedr Lonar alias ap Coqu cont progr 22. pag. 327. almighty God shewed the seuerity of his iudgments when Phocas came to bee Emperour though otherwise a naughty cruel mā he made a constitution declaring that the Church of Rome Plat. in Bonif. 3. which is head of all Churches should bee soe called and held by all forbidding the Bishop of Constantinople the vse of that title which he tooke vpon him of himself Out of which commonly the Protestants obiect that the Bishop of Rome hath receiued his authority from Phocas which is a most absurd and foolish conceipt For the Bishop of Rome's authority is farre greater then can be giuen by any earthly man and which being giuen by our B. Sauiour himself heere vpon earth the Bishops of Rome had possessed and exercized continually for the space of more then 600. yeares before Phocas his tyme. How then could it come from him But this sheweth the knight's ignorance and absurdity which is our busines in this place first in saying that Phocas made such a Decree in behalf of the Bishop of Constantinople which sheweth his ignorance for that Decree was made by Phocas in fauour of Bonifacius Bishop of Rome against the Bishop of Constantinople Secondly in alleadging that for a reason or ground of the Bishops of Rome's authority which is commonly alleadged euen by Protestants against it who by exalting the Bishop of Constantinople would willingly depresse the Bishop of Rome 8. As for the knigt's other argument or his place of Scripture of the kings of the Gentils I see not what it is that hee would say to the purpose Our Sauiour indeede telleth his Disciples hee will not haue them imitate the domineering manner of gouernment of those Kings but contrarywise that hee that is cheife among them shal bee as a Seruant to the rest Which Councel is hath euer beene most obserued by the Bishops of that holy See of Rome who therefore haue vsed to stile themselues SERVVS SERVORVM DEI. THE SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD but will this knight therefore haue it that by reason of this humility there must not bee any Superiority that because he must carry himself like a seruant therefore hee must not feede the Lambes and sheepe of Christ If he meane this as I see not what els he should meane I say noe more but that it is a conceipt worthy of him But besides what a fine line of Succession is heere Doth the Pope succeede either Phocas or any other king or kings of the Gentils to what purpose then are they named 9. But to goe yet on with his toyes hee deduceth our worship of Images from the Basilidians and Carpocratians who saith hee did worship images and professed that they had the image of Christ made by Pilate for which hee citeth S. Irenaeus in the margent His owne doctrine he deriueth from the second of the ten commandements according to his owne translation Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image Heere againe the Knight giueth yet more ample testimony of his notorious naughty dealing For why when he said that these Haeretiques had the picture of Christ made as they said by Pilate why I say could not hee haue gone on with S. Irenaeus who speaking of that and other pictures both painted and carued which they had saith Has coronant Iren. lib. 1. cap. 24. proponunt eas cum imaginibus mundi Philosophoram to wit cum imagine Pythâgorae Platonis Aristotelus reliquorum reliquam obseruationem circa eas similiter vt gentes faciunt They crowne them and propose them with the images of the Philosophers of the world to wit Pythagoras Plato Aristotle and the rest and vse such other obseruation towards them as the
se in scholae disceptationem incidisse Nec oportere CatholicuÌ„ ad eoruÌ„ argumenta respondere Sin vero argumententur matrimonium cum sacris caeremonijs cum sacra materia cum sacra forma a sacro Ministro administratum quemad modum in ecclesia Romana semper vsque ab Apostolis administratum est si hoc inquam argumententur Sacramentum ecclesiae non esse tunc Catholicus respondeat fidenter animose defendat secure contra pugnet Whither our opinion that is his owne be true or false I stand not If the Lutherans will dispute of this kind of Marriages let theÌ„ know they fall vpon a schoole disputation and that a Catholique is not to answeare to their arguments But if they argue that Marriage administred with sacred caeremonies sacred matter sacred forme by a sacred Minister as it hath euer beene administred in the Romane church euen from the Apostles tyme if I say they argue that this is not a SacrameÌ„t of the Church then lett a Catholique answeare confidently let him defend stoutly let him gaine say securely Soe hee 26. Now Sir knight with what face could you alleadge Canus against Matrimony and that for a coÌ„clusion as you say though I say noe for you haue reserued yet a farr lowder lye to conclude with all Which is concerning Vazquez whom heere you honour with an epithet calling him Our learned Iesuit You say then he knew well that neither moderne Diuines nor ancient Fathers did conclude Matrimony for a true and proper Sacrament of the Church and then you say he makes a profession to his Disciples that hauing read considered S. Aug he found that when he called it a Sacrament he spake not of a Sacrament in a proper sense that therefore he doth not alleadge S. Aug. his authority against the Haeretiques in this controuersy this you say heere whereto I will putt your marginall note which you haue pag. 145. which hath relation to this place it is this Vazquez acknowledgeth Matrimony to be no Sacrament properly Now to seuer the true from the false Vazquez indeede saith that S. Aug. speaking of Matrimony doth vse the word Sacrament but in a large sense This is true but it is but Vazquez his priuate and singular opinion not in a point of faith nor any thing neere it but onely of the meaning of one Father in the vse of a word which if it be taken in such a sense is a good proofe for a point of Doctrine if not it is noe proofe against it but there may be other proofes in the same Fathers and other Fathers may hane that very word in in the proper sense But euen this opinion of Vazquez concerning this word of S. Aug. is contradicted by all other Catholique Diuines Bell lib. 1. de Matr. cap. â—â— and Bellar. particularly by diuers good reasons sheweth S. Aug. to vse this word properly when he speaketh of Matrimony This is all that is true in your saying of Vazquez 27. Now I come to the false first asking you a question if Vazquez say Matrimony is noe Sacrament as your marginal note which I spake of before saith I would know what controuersy that is that Vazquez saith hee hath with Haeretiques and for proofe whereof he doth not bring S. Aug his authority of the word Sacrament because in his iudgment it is not effectual what thinke you Sir Humphrey is it not of Matrimony and what controuersy is it but whither Matrimony be properly a Sacrament or noe Which Haeretiques deny and Vazquez affirmes els he can haue noe controuersy with them about it See Sir Humphrey how you looke about you for in this very place and words which you bring to shew Vazquez for you he shewes himselfe against you besides Sir Humphrey looke againe in Vazquez to 4. in 3. p. and soe whether he haue not one whole disputation expresly for the proofe of Matrimony calling it a Sacrament truely and properly prouing it by the definition of the Church and by the authority of other Fathers though he forbeare to vse the authority of S. Augustine for the reason a fore said reprouing Durand's error for saying that it was not a SacrameÌ„t vniuocally with the rest Nay his expresse conclusion concerning the same is this Vazque de Matr. disp 2. cap. 3. Matrimonium est Sacramentum non solum latiori significatione pront est signum coniunctionis Christi ecclesiae fed presse propriè prout est signum gratiae sanctificantis suscipientes sicut reliqua sex Matrimony is a Sacrament not onely in a larger signification as it is a signe of the coniunction of Christ and the Church but precisely properly as it is a signe of grace sanctifying the receiuers as the other six And because you tell vs that he knew well that neyther ancient nor moderne Diuines did conclude it for a true and proper Sacrament of the Church I will add his other words in the same chapter which are these De Sacramento in hac significatione semper hucusque loquuti sumtis Scholastici loquuti sunt c. quam veritatem Graeci semper crediderunt nunc etiam credunt And of a Sacrament in this signification allwayes hitherto we haue spoken and other Diuines haue spoken which truth the Graecians haue euer beleeued still beleeue So as not himself onely but other Diuines also euen the Greeks or Greeke Church not onely doe beleeue and speake but haue beleeued and spoken of Matrimony's being a Sacrament in the proper and strict sense Which considered what intolerable impudency is it in you to tell vs that Vazque should say that neither moderne Diuines nor ancient Fathers did conclude Matrimony for a true and proper Sacrament it were not to be beleeued of any man but that we see it And with this I was thinking to end this § Thereby to leaue a good rellish in the Reader 's mind of your honest and faithfull dealing The rest being nothing but such foolish stuffe as you are wont to talke without rime or reason but onely that there occurred a place of Bellarmine which you abuse soe strangely as that I could not passe it ouer without noting It is thus 26. You say touching your two Sacraments they are knowne and certaine because they were primarily ordained by Christ touching the other fiue they had not that immediat institution from Christ Wherevpon say you the learned Card. noting Bellarmine in the margent is forced to confesse The sacred things which the Sacraments of the new Law signify are threefold the grace of iustification the passion of Christ and aeternall life Touching Baptisme and the Eucharist the thing is most euident concerning the other fiue it is not soe certaine Soe say you where in a few lines you haue soe much falshood soe patched vp together that a man knoweth not well what to begin with But to begin you say your two Sacraments are knowne and certaine you meane knowne and certaine that
scripture which they stood vpon he answeareth thus Et etiam si sacrae scripturae authoritas non subesset Dialog 2. con Lucifer totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret And although the authority of holy Scripture were wanting the consent of the whole world on this side should haue the force of a praecept And soe there is an end of this 5. § Of Prayer and seruice in a knowne tongue §. 6. 1. In this § the Knight speaketh against the practise and doctrine of the Catholique Church in two things One is for vsing the publique seruice in a tongue not knowne to the vulgar people another for saying some part of the Masse with a lowd voyce so as the people cannot heare The practice of which two things though the Knight confound them into one was seuerally and distinctly approued by the Councell of Trent anathema pronounced against whosoeuer should condemne either of them Against which notwithstanding he beginneth with the Councel's owne authority thinking also euen by it to make good the contrary practise of his Church For saith hee the Councel in saying that the Masse doth containe great instruction of the faithfull people or as he translateth the words of the Councel in the beginning of this § great instruction for the common people And that it is to be interpreted vnto them doth consequently affirme that the seruice and prayer in the reformed Churches in the vulgar tongue was better for the aedification of the Church and this he cōfirmes with an argument of his owne thus And without doubt saith hee the Apostles being cōmanded to shew forth the Lord's death till his coming it was not intended to shew it to the walls or in a silent vnknowne voyce as it is now vsed in the Romane Church but to pronounce it openly to bee heard and vnderstood of the hearers Soe farre our Knight Now to reckon with him 2. Because the Councel of Trent saith that the Masse containeth great instruction of the people and that for that end it is to be interpreted vnto them he saith it consequently affirmes the practize of the reformed Churches to be better for aedificatiō of the Church Doth it soe Sir Humphrey by what Logicke doth this cōsequēce follow or by what figure of Rhethoricke do You take one thing for another the Councel saith that though the Masse containe great instruction yet it doth not follow that it should bee in the vulgar tongue you tell vs the Councel by cōsequence doth affirme it to follow the Councel thinketh it better to retaine the general and long continued practise of the Church of not vsing the vulgar tongues in the Sacrifice of the Masse but for instruction of the people to interprete something of what is read you say it approueth the contrary custome of your Church if it had soe had it not beene an easier matter to haue appointed it to be read in the vulgar tongue but the Councel knew well that course was not soe fitt neither in respect of the publique good of the Church nor in reguard of the priuate good of the faith-full people for many reasons 3. First for the general practise and custome which hath beene obserued in the Church of God of hauing the Masse and publique office in Latine all ouer the Latine or Westerne Church both in Italy Spaine France Germany England Africke all other places and soe likewise in Greeke in the Graecian or Easterne Church though it were as large in extent had as much variety of vulgar languages in it as the Latine Church hath Which custome is not to be forsaken especially for Haeretiques out of that their false perswasiō that it is noe good or lawful practice Secōdly for the vniformity which is fit to be vsed in such things and vnity of the Catholique Church which is excellently declared also much maintained by this Vnity of Langage in the Church-office For as lāguage is a thing most necessary for cōmerce amōg men in ciuill matters so also in ecclesiastical and without this vse of Latine in this māner there could not bee that cōmunication betwene men of learning neither would mē of one countrey be the better for the writings of others there would be litle meeting of men of seueral nations in Councels little study of Councels of Fathers others who haue all writtē in Latine or some learned language whereas the vse of the Latine tongue in the Church is the cause of all the contrary effects as we see by experiēce Thirdly the vse of vulgar tongues in the Masse and Church-office would cause not onely great confusion but breed an infinite number of errours by soe many seueral translations not onely in seueral countries but by seueral translations in euery countrey of any small extent euen in the same place vpon a litle change of tyme for as we see in euery age the vulgar language reciueth a great alternation of which translations the Church would not be able any way to iudge scripture being the hardest thing to translate of all other which therefore for the well trāslating thereof requireth the special assistance of the holy Ghost which noe priuate man can promise himselfe Lastly the vse of a vulgar language in such things would breede a great cōtempt of sacred things with prophanes and irreligiosity besids the daunger of haeresy which cometh noe way sooner then by mis-vnderstanding of holy scripture Neither are any more apt to mis-vnderstād it then the simpler sort of people if they once take vpon them to vnderstand These reasons then among others but most of all the tradition of the Church drawne euen from the Apostles by perpetual Successiō and practise might perswade the Councel to thinke that though some benefitt might come to some few particular men by vnderstanding what is written yet it was absolutely better to retaine the same custome still and euen to remedy that inconuenience another way to wit by explaning something of what is read in the Masse which the Councel declareth by a similitude very proper for the purpose to wit by breaking of bread to little ones fort it is euen as necessary for ordinary people to haue the Scriptures soe declared as for children to haue their bread broken and as vnfit to giue such men the Scripture it self whole to reade or to reade it soe vnto them as to giue a little child a whole great loafe Neither if a man marke the Councel of Trent's words well doth it say that the Masse doth containe instruction in that sense as if the only reading of things in the vulgar language would bee an instruction but onely that it containeth great instruction that is many things which might be good for the people to learne being explicated which a man might truely say though euen when it is in the vulgar language it cannot be vnderstood without helpe of an expositor how then Sir Humphrey doth the Councel acknowledge your
answeare is that Polydore speaketh not of the ancient Fathers of the new Testament but of those of the old whom therefore he nameth veteres patres the old Fathers and in particular nameth Moyses and Ezechias the reason indeede why they did condemne the worship of images was feare of idolatry but the reason of that feare was as he saith because noe man hauing seene God they knew not what shape to giue thim and discoursing of the brazen serpent which was a figure of Christ vpon the crosse he saith a long tyme after God put on humane sharpe and being made man was seene and knowne by mortall men and in that humble shape by his owne power wrought miracles beyond credit the same whereof made men come flocking vnto him who did soe behold and reuerence his face without doubt shining with the brightnes of diuine light that they thē first beganne to paint and carue his effigies now already imprinted in their minds And there telling to that purpose the story out of Eusebius of the hemorrhoisse and 2. pictures of our Sauiour made by himself one sent to Abagarus the other giuen to Veronica he also saith thus it is a constant opinion that S. Luke did paint in certaine tables the figure of our Lady which to this day are in some places kept most holily and worshipped most religiously Then relating out of Eusebius how the images of the Apostles were framed and kept by Christiās citeth the words following out of him Insignia etenim veterum reseruari ad posterorū memoriam illorum honoris horū vero amoris iudiciū est For the reseruing of the signes markes or thing belonging to the aunciēts to the memory of posterity is a signe of honor to thē loue in these Hēce saith Polydore is growne worthily a custome of placing in the Churches reuerencing the statues as well of our Sauiour as his SS But because by the memory of Saints as it were an exāple or sample set before our eyes which the images represent men are stirred vpp to vertue imitatiō the honour of the image passeth to the honour of the original as S. Basil saith therefore the Fathers haue not onely admitted that custome but by the authority of the 6. Synod at Cōstantinople vnder Constātine Iustinian the 2. his sonne it was decreed as may appeare by the canonical decrees that the holy images of SS should be had in Churches worshipped with great veneration being to ignorant people in place of the holy Scripture whereto also Frankincense is offered and tapers are lighted and there adding 2. or 3. Councels more decreeing the same againe he concludeth thus Ecquis igitur tam dissolutus tantaque audacia praeditus est qui velit possitue dubitare seu aliter somniare ne dicam sentire vel cogitare de imaginum cultu ac demum sit tot longe sanctissimorum patrum decreto constitutum What man is there therefore so disolute and endewed with soe much boldnes who will or can doubt or otherwise dreame that I may not say iudge or thinke of the worship of images then at last hath beene approued by the Decree of soe many most holy Fathers Thus farr Polydore to whose demaund why may not I answeare that Sir Humphrey Linde is the man soe dissolute and audacious that dares not onely dreame but waking with all his witts and sences that he hath about him and speaking and writing dares I say not onely doubt of but absolutely deny the lawfulnes of the worship of images And not onely this but euen to bring thee ô Polydore Virgil to witnesse with him against the Romane Church that all the ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church condemned the same What would this authour say to you Sir Humphrey if he were aliue to see himselfe abused by you and which is yet more euen after Dr. White was conuict of this dissolutenes and audaciousnes yet you would be at it againe Heereby a man may see there needes noe other confutation but onely right citing of your owne authours 17. For Peresius his words are nothing against vs for they touch onely vpon a schoole point whether the picture be to be adored with the same worship as the prototype or thing represented or with an inferiour worship the former opinion onely he denieth because saith he there is neither proofe out of scripture tradition of the Church common consent of Fathers or determination of a general Councel which very saying of his is enough to condemne you who will not acknowledge sufficient authority in tradition Fathers or Councel to belieue a thing which you like not But to make it plainely appeare how much you wrong Peresius in bringing him against the worship of images I will bring a place 2. leaues before that which you cite out of him it is this Manifeste habes c. Peres de tradit cap. de imag It is manifest that the vse and worship of images hath beene vniuersally in the Church from the tyme of the Apostles and that the dis-esteeme of them began from forlorne and infamous men 500. yeares after the Church was planted and truely if the worship and reuerence be done deuoutly and sincerely this institution is holy and profitable which both Apostolique tradition hath introduced the vse of the vniuersal Church affirmed the consent of very famous and generall Councels both in the East and West being added thereto which also euen natural reason doth dictate Thus farre are Peresius his owne words whereby any man may see whether Sir Humphrey you deale well with him or not to pretend his authority against our vse and worship of images Agobard de pict imaginib in bibl PP 18. Now for Agobardus whō you seeme to make great acount of if you consider him a little better you will find little cause he writeth indeede a booke de picturis imaginibus the whole drift whereof is onely against the idolatrical vse or abuse of images against which he speaketh very much by occasion of some abuses in his tyme as it is meete hee and euery good man should And for the same end he bringeth many authorityes of the ancient Fathers all which speake plainely against idolatry and likewise he bringeth that canon of the Councel of Eliberis which you bring out of him that noe picture should be painted on the walls vnderstanding it in the same sense which I alleadged in my second answeare to that Canon before to wit for auoyding superstition in some young and vnexperienced Christians conuerted from gentility But for those words which follow in your citation of him to wit these There is noe example in all the scriptures or Fathers for adoration of images I doe not find them in him this I am sure of that they are not ioyned with the former as you heere ioyne them Thus indeede he saith in a certaine place habuerunt antiqui Sanctorum imagines vel pictas vel sculptas sed causa historiae ad
wind INDVLGENCES §. 8. 1. Wee are now come to the last § of this chapter which is Indulgences which you Sir Humphrey beginne after your wonted manner with the tenth article of our Creede as you call it and the Decree of the Councel of Trent teaching that Christ hath left that power of granting Indulgences in his Church and that the Church hath vsed the same from most ancient tymes and that therefore they are to be retained in the Church condemning also whosoeuer shall terme them vnprofitable or deny authority in the Church to grant them Which doctrine you allow not of as not being agreable to Christ institution nor the practize of the primitiue Fathers You confesse indeede that in the Primitiue Church there was a power in the Bishops to remit or mitigate the seuerity of the punishment which by the Canons men were to vndergoe for certaine great crimes which mitigation you allow to haue beene called by the name of Indulgence and in that sense you take that relaxation of the incestuous Corithian by S Paul Thus farr you goe well with vs but now you say the Indulgence of the Roman Church is an absolution from the guilt of temporal punishment by application of the merits of Christ his Saints termed the treasure of the Church Which treasure you say is applyed to the soules in Purgatory and that which was formerly vsed for mitigation of punishment is now reduced to priuate satisfaction and that which was formerly left to the discretion of euery Bishop in his Diocesse is transferred wholy to the Pope and this not onely for some few yeares in this life but for many thousāds in Purgatory after death 2. This is your discourse Sir Humphrey Which though you seeme to take to be a very good and substantiall one yet is it nothing soe For first it neither proueth any thing nor ouerthroweth our doctrine of Indulgences though that were true which you say of the difference betweene our Indulgence of these tymes and those of the primitiue Church for the vse of those tymes is not our onely ground for this point of doctrine but wee haue others both of scripture tradition vndoubted practice of the Church for aboue a thousand yeares at least and this of the practise of the Primitiue church in relaxation of the punishment of the poenitential canons is not vrged by vs at lest by some of our Diuines as an euidēt conuincing proofe but onely as coniectural and probable Suar. to 3. in 3. pars disp 49 sect 2. n. 4.5 s◠q. it is not then to the purpose for you to stand soe much vrging the difference betweene the Indulgences of our tymes and those of other former tymes as if by doeing that you had done all that was to be done 3. But besides to answeare Secondly you haue not done euen that for you doe but onely make shew as if you would haue men thinke they were different without shewing wherein the difference consisteth Nay euen out of that which you graunt of those ancient Indulgēces you may be disproued in what you deny of ours for to begin with the very word Indulgence you graunt it to haue beene in vse in those tymes But you say ours is an absolution from the guilt of temporal punishment by application of the merits of Christ Which though alleadged as a difference yet doe I not see wherein the difference is For theirs was an absolution because it was an vnloosing or vntying For whereas by the Canons for certaine great crimes men were bound or tyed to vndergoe such penance for example to fast with bread and water soe many dayes in a weeke for soe many moneths or yeares not to be admitted to the Sacraments and Sacrifice of the Masse and the like By this indulgence or pardon which you grant they were vntied or loosed from soe much or soe little as by that pardon they were freed from and soe is it in our Indulgence wherefore the difference is not in the absolution which is nothing but loosing or vntying It can not be also in the guilt which must needs be remitted in your indulgēce as well as in ours For a man is not free soe long as he is guilty if then they were freed by that pardon the guilt was taken away thereby It is not likewise in the temporal punishmēt which is alike remitted in the one and other For it was temporal punishment or penance which men were freed from in those tymes by indulgence and soe it is temporal punishment which wee are now adayes freed from by our indulgence Wherefore I doe not vnderstand what you meane Sir Humphrey when you seeme to make a difference in this saying that Indulgences which were first vsed for mitigation of punishments are now reduced to priuate satisfactiōs For what were not those Indulgences giuen to priuate men for satisfaction or in lieu of that satisfaction which they were to make by the Canons and are not ours mitigation of the same vnlesse you put the force in this that there the punishment was onely mitigated or lessened that in our Indulgence all is taken away which yet is false on both sides for neither in ours is all the punishment taken alwayes away and in those sometymes all was taken away as we see by the example of the Corinthian whom S. Paul doth forgiue without limitation besids this I do not imagine what you cā meane in these words 4. The difference also is not in the authority or power whereby this pardon is graunted for then it was granted by the Bishops and soe it is also now For euery Bishop in the Catholique Church hath this power But you will say Humphrey not soe much now as then be it soe that is against your selfe for that is your complaint that it is more vsed now then in those tymes But you say againe the Pope hath more now then he had then and that all is transferred wholy to him To which I answeare that this later part is false all is not soe wholy transferred but that euery Bishop hath his part of this power ouer his owne subiects though with some limitation and though the Pope should take it wholy to himself and from other Bishops what is this against Indulgences doth it alter the nature of them because the Pope giueth them either more by himself or more liberally then he did heeretofore by others The power was in many before now it is in one that one then hath more power then he had before but is it not the same kind of power wherefore the difference cannot consist in this but thinke not Sir that I grant you the Popes power to be more now then at that tyme it was nor lesse then thē now it is It was the same of this power as of all other his power of binding loosing whereof this is one branch which did euer extend ouer the whole Church ouer all pastors and all and euery one of
that suppose he doe know thē to be good yet they haue not that goodnes from him or as they are his but as they are from almighty God and by his grace And yet more we teach that he may fall againe and loose all his labour which doth exceedingly diminish confidence of a man's selfe soe as we leaue nothing for a man to trust to of himselfe but that he must giue all to God as S. Paul did in saying 1. Cor. 15.10 non ego sed gratia Dei mecum not I but the grace of God with mee qui gloriatur in Domino glorietur That he that doth glory may glory in God and to shew that we haue nothing of our selues we say againe with the same Saint quid habes quod non accepisti What hast thou which thou hast not receiued Now on the other side examine you your owne doctrine a little better and see whither it doth not teach the contrary vaine cōfidence in most of these points as that a man must assure himself that his sinnes are forgiuen that he must assure himself of his saluation that he cannot fall from grace and the like Which ground supposed how can he worke his saluation with feare trembling as S. Peter teacheth And soe we haue answeared 3. points of Safety which you begin withall out of your owne inuention Now you come to other points of Safety which you proue by authority of other men 5. The first of these and fourth in order is Communion in both kinds which you say is better then in one kinde alone you proue it out of Cassander Vazq Hales and Valencia I answeare that for Cassander you know he is noe author to be alleadged against a Catholique For Vazq it seemeth you are not so well skilled in him as to cite him out of his owne works but out of the frēch Minister Chamier who is another great mā with you But for the matter it is true some few Catholiques as Vazq Hales p. 4. q. 11. m. 2. ar 4. § 3. for Valencia I shall tell you more anone are of opiniō that it is of greater merit and fruit to receiue in both kinds then in one But I aske you why it should be more safe to follow those two then 10. 20. 30. or 40. Other Diuines to the cōtrary For my part I doe not see any reason for it if you waigh the matter by reason or by number and authority of Doctors Secondly neither of these two doth acknowledge any danger in our practice of one kind but allow it for good and lawfull For soe saith Hales quia Christus integrè sumitur sub vtraque specie bene licet sumere corpus Christi sub specie panis tantum sicut fere vbique fit a laicis in ecclesia Because Christ is receiued entirely vnder each kind it is very lawful to receiue the body of Christ vnder the kind of bread onely as it is vsed almost euery where by the Layity in the Church And Vazq employeth a whole disputation in the proofe of the same Truth out of Scripture and tradition shewing withall that the Latine Church did with very good reason forbid Communion in both kinds and soluing all the arguments of the Haeretiques against it Soe as he acknowledgeth not your doctrine to be either safe or the same with his but a cleane different haeresy For his is a Schoole opinion not of the safety but of the fruitfulnes of Communion in One or both kinds Yours is an haeresy denying the sufficiency of one kind and vrging both as a matter of necessity for the integrity of the Sacrament and fulfilling of Christ's praecept and denying also the authority of the Church for dispensing therein And though in speculation Vazq rather allow both kinds to be more fruitfull yet all circumstances considered he deemeth Communion in one kind absolutely better for many great reasons pertayning to the reuerence of the Sacrament and common good which doe not onely counteruaile but farre surpasse the want of that fruit which is giuen more by the other kind all necessary grace being giuen by one alone as he teacheth And for Hales besids that he holdeth it very lawfull to communicate in one kind onely which is directly against you I thinke a man that would goe about it might easily puzle you out of him euen for soe much as pertaineth to the perfection of the spiritual fruit p. 4. q. 10. m. 3. ar 1. For thus he saith to that which is said that he that receiueth vnder the forme of bread onely receiueth the Sacrament perfectly and entirely I answeare that this Sacramēt is receiued two wayes spiritually and sacramētaly Wherefore I say that quantum ad spiritualē sumptionē perfectè accipit for as much as pertaineth to the spiritual receiuing he receiueth it perfectly but not so for the Sacramētal receiuing Now this perfection of a Sacrament he explicateth before to consist in the representation which saith he is not soe perfect in one kind as both Which we also grant though we say the fruit to be the same in One and both kinds See Sir Humphrey how you can get out of this brake Now for Valencia your third author whom you cite in the margent saying that he affirmeth the same to wit with Hales and Vazq let any man see whether you doe not play him a Lindy-tricke For these are his words in the very same chapter by you cited Val de leg vs. Euchar. cap. 6. Hoc sacramentum tam est per se fructuosum efficax in altera specie quam in vtraque specie This sacrament is of it selfe as fruitfull and effectual in one kind as in both and soe your doctrine in this point is as safe and comfortable as your citation of this author is true 6. The fift of your safe and profitable points is of your communion of Priest and people together the safety you proue not by any thing but your owne bare word For the profitablenes of the Sacrifice indeede you proue it is more when the people communicate with the Priest out of the Councel of Trent Harding and Bellarmine but Sir that is not the controuersy between you and v◠but this whether the Priest may not say Masse vnlesse he haue some to communicate with him or euen whether it be more profitablenes for the Priest that he haue some to communicate with him or euen whether the Sacrifice be lesse perfect in it selfe in that case or not Of this you say not a word as neither doe your authors which you bring for they speake onely of the fruit which would redound to the people which we grant to be greater when they communicate with the Priest then when not But of the forme or matter of controuersy they all determine absolutely against you their whole drift in those places being none other but to disproue you as may easily appeare to any man that will looke in them and I haue partly shewed before
are wont also to say a man were better not heare Masse at all then not to heare it deuoutly or a man is better not to doe such or such a thing then not to doe it well or willingly and the like though indeede in our iudgment we thinke it better the thing be done though with some imperfection then not at all But this we say to signify the desire we haue to see it well done or that we doe not receiue that content by the slender or sleight manner of doing it And this is the very truth of S. Chrysost saying Bell. de Miss lib. 2. cap. 10 as Bell. maketh it to appeare plainely both by an example out of scripture and by other argument's out of S. Chrysost himselfe which you may looke better vpon againe and consider well with your selfe whether you haue dealt well with Bell. in alleadging his bare words soe as if he had giuen noe reason for his saying Besids I doe not find that S. Chrysost speake the very words which you alleadge soe crudely and harshly as you make him For he doth not say plainely that it is better not to be present at the Sacrifice then not to communicate but to shew the indignity of it bringeth a similitude of a man that should inuite a freind to a feast and that freind coming should onely sitt there and not eate a bitt of meate Chrys hom 3. in ep ad Ephes he asketh whether in soe doing he doe not putt an affront vpon his freind that inuited him and were it not better saith he that he had not appeared at all wherein he saith most truely Which for all that being but a similitude doth not hold soe rigourously in euerie particular Lastly I see not what colour there is in this place to disproue that which you call priuate Masse For if Saint Chrysostome had said it had beene better for the Priest not to say Masse then not to haue some to communicate with him it had beene something but to say of the people that it was better for them not to be there then not to communicate I doe not see by what consequence it can be drawne against the Priests saying Masse without communicants especially seeing it is euident V. Durant de rit lib. 2. cap. 4. n. 5. that this Saint did say Masse euery day and many of his people did not cōmunicate past twice or thrice and many also not past once in a twelue moneth 10. The 9. ancient authour is Prudentius whose words you cite not but onely say thus if we cite Prudentius Bellarmine answeares I say noe more of him but that he playeth the Poet but what I pray you Sir is the reason you forbeare to cite Prudentius his words or sense any man may easily guesse there is something in the wind something that you thinke better concealed then discouered but I shall for once supply your want heerein First putting you in mind that in the beginning of this section you told vs you would shew how we elude or reiect the testimonies of the Fathers or to vse your owne words the records and real proofes in Fathers and other learned authours touching the chiefe points in controuersy betwixt vs. Now let vs see whither that for which Prudentius is obiected in Bellarmine be such or not The question in Bellarmine is whether the damned soules in hell feele any benefitt by the suffrages of the liuing or noe For the affirmatiue he bringeth some sayings of Fathers which may seeme to insinuate as much and among others two verses out of Prudentius thus Sunt spiritibus saepe nocentibus Paenarum celebres sub styge feriae The English whereof is that the wicked spirits haue often tymes holydayes that is some ease of their paines to which Bell. maketh noe other answeare indeede but that hee played after the manner of Poets now I aske you whither this be a chiefe point of controuersy betwixt you and vs it should seeme you take it soe because you seeme in all this Section as if you alleadged onely such as make for you in your controuersyes against vs and your very words which you vse heere thus if we cite Prudentius c. import as if you did cite Prudentius for your selfe in that matter whereto Bellarmine answeareth yet it is plaine on the other side that there is not any difference betwixt you and vs in that matter For I neuer heard that any haeretique of this tyme said any such thing as that the damned find any release or ease of their paines by the prayers of the lyuing What say you then Sir Humphrey doe not you alleadge Prudentius to very good purpose doth not this shew a strange contentious spirit in you that care not what you say whether it be to the purpose or not soe it may seeme somewhat against vs though indeede it be not But now for Bellarmines answeare it is true and good and it is well knowne that Poet's words are not allwaies to be soe strictly interpreted nor truth to be altogether soe exacted at their hands as at other men's the restraint which they are faine to vse in the number of their verse giuing them a little more liberty in the matter 11. The 10. Tertullian Bell. de Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 6. whose words you doe not alsoe cite but onely say that if you obiect him Bellarmine answeares his authority is of noe great account when hee contradicteth other Fathers and when it appeareth he was noe man of the Church His words I say you doe not cite but yet in saying if wee obiect him and indeede in naming him you seeme as if you had some controuersy with vs in that point for which he is cited which is of the Virginity of our B. Lady in our Sauiour's birth that is whether she were a Virgin in the birth alsoe or not But though the haeretiques of this age generally speake very meanely and contemptibly of this most sacred Virgin yet I doe not find that your Protestants are soe earnest against her Virginity as to make the contrary a point of your beleife much lesse a chiefe point as you make all that you bring ancient authors for in this place But for the matter it is this Bellarmine speaking of an authority of S. Ambrose his which might seeme at first sight to make against the same then saith that Origen and Tertull. haue something like also and soe answearing altogether he sheweth of Origen S. Ambrose that they are not against vs by expounding those places which seeme against it by other plaine places out of them For Tertullian he saith his words are obscure nor much to be reguarded when he contradicteth other Fathers and when it appeares he was noe man of the Church Which last words you translate falsely and withall leaue out an authority of special moment the words falsly translated are these Cùm constet since it appeareth Whereas you say when it appeareth Which is a different
sense for aske any schoole-boy whether cùm with the subiunctiue and indicatiue moode be all one the thing which you left out is S. Hierom's authority which Bellarmine alleadgeth thus Seing saith he it is euident as Saint Hiero. speaketh that hee was noe man of the Church these being Saint Hierom's very words heere then you see againe that it is Saint Hierome not Bellarmine alone that doth reiect Tertullian nor is Saint Hierome alone of the ancient Fathers in this opinion of him but almost all the Fathers Vincentius Lerinensis saith he was by his fall a great temptation to many Vinc. Lerin cap. 24. Hilar. in comment in Math. cap. 5. and Saint Hilarius saith there that Tertullian's later errours did detract a great deale of authority from his approued writings Soe then it is noe wonder if Bellarmine make small account of him where he contradicteth other Fathers And soe you may say that S. Hierome Vincentius Lerinensis and S. Hilarius reiect and elude the Fathers as well as Bellarmine 12. The 11. is Saint Hierome of whom you say that if you cite him Canus makes answeare Hierome is noe rule of faith Can. de locis lib. 2. cap. 11. but you tell vs not where or vpon what occasion you cite Saint Hierome noe more then you doe the three former Fathers though it be true that in that matter that Canus speaketh of which is the Canon of Scripture you haue Saint Hierome a little more fore you in shew then in any thing els or more then you haue any other of the Fathers yet I dare say you wil be loath to stand to his iudgment euen in that very matter for though this Saint reckon the books of the old testament according to the Canon of the Iewes which you also follow if a man should vrge you with S. Hieromes authority euen in this point I beleeue you would say the same or more then Canus doth to wit that he is noe rule of faith for S. Hierosme alloweth the booke of Iudith to be canonical Scripture Proef. in Iudith though it bee not in the Iewes canon which yet you reiect and on the contrary he saith of Saint Peter's second epistle à plaerisque reijcitur it is reiected by most Descript eccles Verb. Petrus Apost wherein yet you doe not follow him this is for the matter Now for the words you doe not cite Canus right for he doth not say that Saint Hierome is noe rule of faith though that be true as I shall shew presently but thus hauing alleadged Caietan's saying that the Church did follow S. Hierome in reckoning the books of Scripture he denieth it thus For neither is it true saith Canus that S. Hier. is the rule of the Church in determining the canonical books Which is most true S. Hierome is not the rule of the Church but the Church is his rule Hier. praef in Iudith as appeareth in that he reckoneth Iudith among the Canonical books vpon the authority of the Church Neither is it all one to say S. Hierome is noe rule of the Church for determining which books be Scripture which not and to say he is noe rule of faith Besides if Canus had said S. Hierome is noe rule of faith he had said most true and nothing but what holy S. Aug. saith in other words in an Epistle to this same S. Hierome and speaking euen of his writings thus Aug. ep 19 Solis eis scripturarū libris c. I haue learned to giue that feare and honour to those onely bookes of scripture which are now called canonical as to beleeue most firmely that noe author or writer of them hath erred any thing in writing but others I reade soe that though they excell neuer soe much in any holinesse learning I doe not therefore thinke it true because they thought soe but because they haue beene able to perswade either by those canonical authors or by probable reason that they say true and there he goeth on specifying euen S. Hierome himselfe and saying vnto him that he presumeth he would not haue him soe wholy approue of his writings as to thinke there is no error at all in them The like he hath in another place shewing plainely that any priuate Doctor may erre Lib. 2. de Bap. cont Donat. cap. 3 and consequently can be noe rule of faith Yet for all that the authority of any such is very great in any thing wherein he agreeth with others or is not by them gaine said For that is a token that what he saith is the common tradition and beleife of the Church which is a sufficient rule Is this then to reiect and elude the Fathers to say that one is noe rule of faith if it be then doth S. Aug. reiect and elude them it is plaine therefore you doe but cauill for why may not Canus say the same of S. Hierome that S. Aug. doth 13. After S. Hierome you come to Iustin Irenaeus Epiphanius and Oecumenius whom say you if you cite Bellarmine answeares I see not how we can defend the sentence of these men from errour Bell. lib. 1. de Sanct. cap. 6 Heere againe as else where you forbeare to tell vs the matter for which you cite them or who of your authors cite them For this would haue discouered your falshood and vanity The matter then is concerning the damned spirits whether they suffer anie punishment for the present tyme before the day of iudgment or not these fathers thinke not the common consent of all other fathers and of the whole Catholique Church is against them in it How then shall Bellarmine excuse it from an error but I pray you Sir Humphrey bethinke your selfe well and tell vs againe whether this be any point controuerted betweene you and vs I know it is a thing which you might better maintaine then most or perhaps any one point of your faith hauing these 3. or 4. Fathers for you therein but yet I doe not find by your 39. articles or any other sufficient authority that you hold that error much lesse as a chiefe point of your faith Wherefore it is false that you say when you cite these Fathers For you doe not cite them neither is their errour in a matter of controuersy betweene vs I note heere also in a word that whereas Bellarmine saith onely he doth not see how he can defend the opinion of Iustin Irenaeus c. from errour you make him say the opinion of these men as if he did speake but slightly of the Fathers which is a great wrong For though he doe not in all things and alwaies approue the opinion of euery particular man yet doth he allwaies speake with great reuerence of the holy Fathers as all Catholiques doe 14. Lastly you come with Salmeron saying that if you produce the vniforme consent of Fathers against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Salmeron the Iesuit makes answeare weake is the place which is
Index expurgatorius you will acknowledge the nouelty of your Church and submitt your selfe with an implicite faith to the Romane Church Soe you for your counterchalleÌ„ge Sir Humphrey had you marked the challenge well you might haue spared it for the Iesuit required you to performe nothing but that which many on the Catholique part haue performed ready to your hand that is that you should bring such a Catalogue of succession for proofe of the Visibility of your Church as we did many of ours as Sanders Bellarmine Gualterus others You aske by what authority we impose new articles of beleife vpon men this question is not to the purpose but I answeare by denying your suppositioÌ„ for we doe not impose new articles vpon men but defend the old against new faÌ„gled fellowes neither is this the proper place for you to require or for vs to bring proofes out of Fathers Scriptures of particular points whereof you cannot but know that many great and learned men in the Catholick Church haue written great volumes which noe haeretique hath euer yet durst venture to answeare how then can you soe brasenly say that our owne best learned confesse that the articles of the Trent-Creede as you call them are vnknowne to antiquity what point is there defined in the Councel of Trent which is not proued by way of authority of scriptures fathers by Iudocus Coccius by way of reason and solution of arguments by Bell. by way of history by Baronius to say nothing of others some may perhaps say that some points there defined were not before defined by any general Councel but to bring any Catholique to say that they are new or that they were not anciently nor commonly beleeued I dare say Sir Humphrey is more then you can proue but suppose any one may say that there is noe proofe extant in any ancient author of this or that point must it therefore follow that it is new noe surely for all things are not written as S. Iohn verifyeth of our Sauiour's owne words and deeds how much lesse then other things which yet are generally taught and practized in the Catholique Church which very practize without farther proofe S. Augustine maketh to be an argument of antiquity Aug cont Don. lib. 4.24 but of this newnesse of faith whereof you soe ignorantly complaine and likewise of implicite faith I shall say more afterwards 10. Now for our leauinge out the second commandement wherewith you tax vs and changing the fourth from sanctify the Sabboth to Sanctify the holydayes it is pitty you are soe hard driuen as when you are called vpon to proue your Succession and Visibility of your Church to fall vpon vs for the commandements a thing of soe different nature and soe triuiall For first it is false that we leaue out that which you call the second commandment Looke in our bibles and see whether you find it not there in all Editions and translations as well English as Latine or any other language whatsoeuer How then doe we leaue it out you will say we leaue it out in our catechismes true but to leaue a thing out of a catechisme is not absolutely to leaue it out as long as it is els where But besids to answeare you another way wee leaue out many other things as that God is a iealous God that hee reuengeth the Sinnes of the Father to the 3. and 4. generation and the like though they goe intermingled with the commandements in the text and this we doe without blame because they eyther pertaine not precisely to the commandement or are sufficiently expressed in the very words of the commandement it self Soe wee say of this that it is either contayned in the first commandement being onely an explication of the same or if it be a distinct precept as some Deuines say then is it ceremoniall onely and consequently abrogated with the whole Law 11. Soe likewise for the other commandement of Sanctifying the Holy-dayes I answeare that in our bibles or text of scripture we keepe the word Sabboth and in most and best catechismes also as for example Canisius Bellarmines large catechisme and others but specially in that of the Councel of Trent sett out by authority of Pius V. Which were answeare enough to shew we make noe such mystery of it since sometymes we say Sabboth sometymes Holydayes as indeede we well may the sense being the same and we may better vse this liberty in catechismes where we stand not soe much to cite the very words of scripture as to declare the meaning of them though in the text it selfe we keepe precisely to the very words Where yet we explicate it in the same sense following therein the example of Scripture it self which vseth those words indifferently as may appeare Leuit. cap. 23. Where other Holydayes beside the Saturday or Sabboth are called Sabbata 3. or 4. tymes in that one chapter and in the beginning thereof those dayes which are called Sabbata are called twice Feriae sanctae Holydayes Soe as you Sir Humfrey in making such a deale of difference betweene Sabboth and Holyday shew your self to be but shallowly read in scripture Besids I may answeare to this as to the former obiection that this coÌ„mandment was partly ceremonial to wit for as much as pertayneth to that particular day of saturday and partly natural to wit soe farre as it obligeth to the obseruing of some daye or tyme holy indeterminately 12. But if we be such great offenders for changing â—â—e word Sabboth in some of our catechiâ—mes into Holyday what are you for changing the very commaÌ„dement while you stand working vpon Saturday and rest vpon Sunday soe changing the Sabboth it self but what stuffe is this for you to trouble your gentry Readers withall in the very beginning of your booke and in your Epistle dedicatory forsooth and not onely to touch vpon it heere but to print the commandements faire in a leafe by themselues with a marginal note of Ledaesma's catechisme of 2. or 3. editions as if you would make your Reader stand at some goodly gaze but by this a man may easily guesse what matter hee is like to find in the booke it selfe I could haue noted a thing of the same kind of yours in this Epistle in the first leafe where you say truth is iustifyed of her Children whereas the text of scripture is Wisedome is iustified c but that I did not count it worth speaking of 13. Touching your great boast that if we can shew one good author in euery age for this 1500. yeares who hath held our Trent articles as you call them de fide you will confesse our Doctours Schoolmen c. to be mistaken and to neede an index expurgatorius and that you will submitt your self to the Romane Church acknowledging the nouelty of your owne church Forasmuch as this your promise seemeth by the manner to be but a proud vaunt to delude the simple reader to make him more confident
owne authors and why may not he doe the like to vs for the reason is cleane different They haue noe publique authority which can define what is Faith and what not but that is left not onely to euery priuate Doctour or Minister but to euery priuate Lay man and Woman And though it be true that it is noe conuincing proofe to vrge one particular Protestant Doctor 's authority against another there being not two among them of one opinion wholy much lesse one bound to answeare for the other Yet we are faine and may with good reason vse it because they haue noe certaine rule of Faith wherewith we may vrge them Authority of Church they haue none Scripture they haue indeede but soe mangled corrupted peruerted by translation and misinterpreted according to their owne fancies that as they haue it it is as good as nothing Traditions they haue none Councels they haue not any among themselues nor will stand to ours Consent of Fathers or Schoolemen they care not for Consent of Doctors they haue not among themselues nor can haue without an heade neyther if they had would any man thinke himself more bound by that then by consent of Fathers what then is left but to vrge them with the authority of such as they acknowledge for their brethren But with vs the case is farre different for we haue diuers infallible rules of faith though all with some reference to one principal rule As Scripture in the plaine and literal sense which is out of controuersy tradition or common beleefe and practize of the whole Church Councels either general or particular confirmed by the See Apostolique the authority of that Holy See it self defining ex cathedra though without either generall or particular Councel the common and vniforme Consent of ancient Fathers or moderne Doctours and Schoolemen deliuering any thing vnto vs as Matter of Faith 15. All these six rules of faith we acknowledge wherewith let this Knight or any Protestant in the world vrge vs we flinch not wee doe not deny the authority but are ready to make good whatsoeuer is taught anie of these wayes What folly then is it for a man to stand vrging vs with the authority of any one priuate man who may straggle out from the rest though to goe farther then we neede in such great liberty as wee giue Protestants wee giue them leaue to vrge vs with the authority of any one single Doctour in a point wherein hee is not contradicted by other Catholique Doctours or which other Catholiques doe not wholy disauow What more can a man desire And yet againe though the Knight or any other Protestant should bring such a single author for his opinion yet is there such a maine difference betweene him and them that noe Protestant can iustly pleade that single Catholique author to be wholy of his opinion or beleife in that point to say nothing of others wherein they differ For the Protestant holdeth his doctrine stifly not meaning in any case or for any authority to change or leaue it which is it that that maketh a man properly an Haeretique Whereas the Catholique euer holdeth it with indifferency ready to leaue it whensoeuer the Catholique Church shall determine otherwise Which if Sir Humphrey will be but content to doe wee will beare with all his errours because then they will be soone amended What little helpe then is hee like to haue from Catholique authors or what likelyhoode is there for him to make good his paradoxes or rather his most absurd heresies out of our owne Cardinals Bishops Doctors Schoolemen c. whom he putteth all in the plural number as if the number were to bee very great Whereas God knoweth they come very poore and single as shall appeare and some bee Cardinals of his owne creating only as I shall after shew but this hee doth for credit of his cause though it bee with losse of his owne 16. And all this which heere I say is to bee vnderstood supposing that indeede he cite Catholique authors and cite them truely as heere hee promiseth which promise for as much as concerneth true citing how hee performeth I shall afterwards make manifest heere onely I shall adde a word concerning his authors who he promiseth vs shal bee Catholiques Whereas indeede for the most part they are either knowne Haeretiques or some such men as though with much adoe they may passe for Catholiques as Erasmus Cornelius Agrippa Cassander and the like yet they gaue themselues soe much liberty in they writings as they came to bee noted for it and their works forbidden Of which I will not therefore make any account as noe other Catholique doth But when I come to such authorityes as there be many in this booke I meane to make noe other answeare but that the author is condemned or booke forbidden in the index librorum prohibitorum the table of forbidden bookes Wherein I cannot but note Sir Humphrey's ill fauoured and dishonest dealing in pretending to cite only our owne Doctors and Schoolemen and yet afterwards obtruding such as he knoweth to bee subiect to soe mayne exception and soe to bee by vs disauowed and reiected as incompetent Iudges or witnesses 17. But there is noe other to bee expected at such a man's hands and therefore I will neyther looke for better nor say more of it but by this occasion adde a word or two concerning the Index expurgatorius which soe much troubleth the consciences of these men Which being rightly vnderstood noe man of reason and iudgment can be offended with it For it is nothing but a continuance of the same care which hath beene euer obserued in the Church of God for preseruing of the Catholique fayth and integrity of life from the corruption of Haeretiques and other wicked men who by bookes bring great preiudice both to Faith and manners vnlesse special care be vsed for praeuenting thereof Of the necessity and iustnes of which course there be whole books written by diuers learned Catholique Doctors neyther can any body dislike thereof but onely Haeretiques who indeede find themselues mightily aggreiued therewith as being by this course depriued of a chiefe meanes of spreading their wicked doctrine by books though indeede they haue noe more cause to complaine then Necromancers Iudiciary Astrologers Southsayers Witches Magicians and euen bad Catholiques who publish naughty and lasciuious books for this care of the Church doth extend to all whatsoeuer may be offensiue or hurtfull eyther to faith or good manners 18. But because Sir Humphrey will needs haue it that the bible is also forbidden and the Father's writings appointed to bee corrected and rased I answeare that for the Bible indeede it is not permitted in the vulgar language to euery body without any reguard or distinction of persons as it neuer was nor ought to bee as is well proued by authority of Fathers and reason in the preface of the Rhemes testament But yet it is not soe forbidden but that it
to vs or euer saying word in proofe that the case is the same I might with as much reason out of this story of Redwalde say as much of Sir Humphrey Linde that hee and his Protestants haue built a new Church a new faith erected an altar against an altar c. 3. But as I was saying of his authors they are not many as you see much lesse haue they any part among Catholiques For Cassander Michael de Caesenas and Philip Morney are in the Index of forbidden books Camden and his English Canon writers are Protestants but which is more strange not a man of these such as they are that saith any thing of that which hee pretendeth in the title of his Chapter but onely Cassander who after the fashion of Haretiques speaketh of the Pompe and pride of the Clergy and that they will not hearken to the admonitions of some godly men aduising reformation these godly men he meaneth such as himself that is Haeretiques or next doore to them though Sir Humphrey please often to call him a Learned Romanist Soe that all the cause that euen this man alleageth of the contention is because the ecclesiastical persons will not yeild themselues to Haeretiques and lett them haue the ordering and disposing of all things at their pleasures therefore they breake away and fall into contention with the Church What cause doe Clergy men giue of contention in not submitting themselues to their inferiours and to men that haue noe authority ouer them or euen if the counsel of these people were good as it is not and that Clergy men thinke not good to follow it must they therefore presently fall to schisme and haeresy tearing and renting the Church By what Law are Clergy men bound to obey such fellowes if in a ciuill commonwealth some great man should dislike the gouernment eyther because his enemyes haue the managing of matters or that he thimketh he could doe it better then they and presuming to giue counsell to the Prince and his counsel they shoull not follow it and that therefore hee should goe from court make head and raise a rebellion in the common wealth who should bee counted cause of this contention the Prince and his Counsel or hee if Sir Humphrey be iudge he must say the Prince and his Counsel if he will make good his man Cassander's discourse 4. As for Michael de Caesena whom the Knight also calleth a learned Friar it is true he was a Friar and General of his Order but for his learning I neuer heard any such commendation of it but we know why the Knight prayseth him Well be it soe but the man being excommunicated and deposed by the Pope for his disobedience and rebellion he said that particular man which was Iohn 22. was an Apostata and an Heretique and therefore noe true Pope But that he made two such Churches one of the wicked vnder the Pope another of the good without any heade as Morney makes him make and this Knight out of him I find not in any good author but rather that hee allowed of the authority of the Romane Church for he appealed from the Popes sentence to it as may be seene in Coquus his answeare to Morney's mystery of iniquity pag. 205. to 2. and in the table verbo Michael de Coesena Neither was he euer taxed with any such haeresy 5. His English Church-Canon commandeth nothing to be taught as matter of faith but what is agreable to the Old and new testament and is collected out of the ancient Fathers and Catholique Bishops but what is that to the purpose how doth this proue vs to giue the cause of Contention hee will say this proueth his men to giue none I answeare that if all the rest of their Canons and proceedings were answearable to the saying of this Canon there would perhaps bee somewhat lesse to doe Though it be not any way conformable to the Scripture and doctrine of fathers for lay authority to make Canons for Clergy men and therefore the practise shewed in this Canon is contrary to the words And soe the 2. section is answeared 6. The third section is of corruptions both in faith and manners which the Knight saith we confesse and yet deny to reforme He proueth it out of the Councel of Pisa where Alexander the 5. Concil Pisan sess 20. promised to attend to the reformacion of the Church and out of the Councel of Trent acknowledging many things amisse in matter of indulgences Masse c. To this I answeare that for matter of manners we willingly acknowledge reformacion to be needfull and such it is that these two Councels speake of and haue performed as is to beseene by their Decrees though the former be not of any great authority Concil Trident sess 22. Decret de reformat And for the later it complaineth indeede with great reason of the auarice of such as had the gathering of moneys giuen in almes by occasion of indulgences Whom the Knight calleth the Popes Collectors though the Councel speake not of the Pope But he out of his loue to the Pope would faine bring him in vpon al such occasions This is true but false it is which he saith that the Councel complaineth of indulgences an article of the Romane faith as his words are For as it reformeth the corruption of the officers soe doth it establish the truth of the Doctrine as appeareth by a particular decree thereof which is also acknowledged and cited els where by this Knight himself whereby hee is conuinced of wilfull corruption The same Councel likewise complaineth of many things crept in in the celebration of Masse by the fault of the tymes or carelesnesse and wickednesse of men which are farre from the dignity of soe great a sacrifice The words of the Councel are right cited by him in Latine in the margent perhaps to saue his credit by sincerity soe much promised in his Epistle dedicatory but in the English which goeth in the text he fouly corrupteth them they are thus in Latine Cum multa irrepsisse videantur Which in English is this Seing many things seeme to haue crept in which the Knight translateth thus there were many errors and corruptions crept in to the Masse which is a grosse error and corruption in the Knight the Councel speaking onely of abuses which were crept in not of errours in matter of faith The Councel likewise seemeth to acknowledge the auarice of Priests making such bargaines for the saying of Masse as was not far from Simony or at least filthy lucre It speaketh of the vse of musique where with some wantonesse was mixed as alsoe of certaine Masses or candles vsed in certaine number that number proceeding rather from superstition then true religion this is true soe farre 7. But that is not true which the Knight saith that we deny a reformation of these things for to what other end are they recounted there but to be reformed nay they are not
Harding the godly and faithfull people since the tyme of the Primitiue church haue much complained Soe you Wherein first any man may see there is noe sense For heere is a relatiue their without an antecedent which fault if you had comitted in a theme when you were a schoole-boy it might perhaps haue cost you somewhat For you doe not expresse who it is that Doctor Harding speaketh of when hee saith it is their owne default neither can it be himself or Catholiques in generall for then he would haue expressed it in the first person saying it is our owne fault and if it bee not himself nor Catholiques in generall then can it bee noe excuse for they be Catholiques in generall or the Catholique Church which you accuse and the accusation and excuse must answeare one the other 12. Secondly it is noe excuse in reguard of the Masse for an excuse hath noe place but where the thing whereof a man is accused is acknowledged for a fault Now that is not heere for that whereof you accuse vs is that our Priests say Masse without any communicants which thing Dr. Harding is soe farr from acknowledging to bee blame worthy that hee doth expresly and stoutly maintaine it against your Iewel as a special controuersy in that whole chapter which you cite How then doth he excuse it Thirdly he doth maintaine the doctrine of the Councel of Trent in this as in all other points where this Canon is decreed Sess 22. can 8. citing also this very Decree Si quis dixerit Missas in quibus solus Sacerdos sacramentaliter cōmunicat illicitas esse ideoque abrogandas anathema sit If any man say that Masses wherein the Priest onely communicateth sacramentally are vnlawfull and therefore to bee abrogated lett him bee anathema Fourthly in another place he denieth your very terme of priuate Masse and noteth vpon the conference betweene Luther and the Diuell which hee there setteth downe that that terme in Luther's sense and your came first out of the Diuells schoole and saith that all Masse is publique in reguard it is offered by the Priest who is the publique Minister of the Church and auaileth all not onely not communicants but euen not present Which is alsoe the doctrine of the Councel Fiftly I answeare that though you sett downe this authority lamely in this place soe as noe man can tell what to make of it yet citing the same els where you say out of him that it is the peoples owne fault and want of deuotion that they doe not communicate with the Priest Which is but the same that the Councel of Trent also saith Which is a cleane other matter For you doe not accuse our peoples coldnes of deuotion for that would fall much more vpon your owne but our Priests for saying Masse without the people communicating which is noe fault and this Dr. Harding maketh good the other hee excuseth or rather not excuseth but acknowledgeth and condemneth as a fault 13. And for his opinion of your religion in general looke but in his Epistle to Iewel before his reioynder to Iewel 's reply And there you shall find he sheweth you to haue noe antiquity For that you beganne with Luther Which he proueth by your owne confessions more then 7. tymes in the apology of your English Synagogue where you say that Luther and Zuinglius were the first that beganne to sett abroad the Ghospel and that all the light was quite extinct and that all the fountaines of the pure water of life were vtterly dried vp before they came He sheweth you to haue noe vniuersality because you seperate your selues from the vnity of the Catholique Church dispersed ouer the whole world He sheweth you to haue noe charity because charity cannot consist without vnity nor euen faith which he proueth by the authority of Saint Augustine and consequently that you haue noe hope of saluation and soe he refuseth euen to bidd Mr. Iewel farewell Haue not you then great reason to haue affiance in Mr. Dr. Harding's testimony of the antiquity vniuersality and safety of your Faith Doe not you then heerein notoriously abuse all manner of men both authours and readers but this is soe ordinary with you that there is noe wondering at it 14. Well thus much then for these three authors whom you haue soe egregiously belyed Now lett vs heare what you say of your owne or of your selfe You say our best learned yet you name none decline those our traditions which you deny and that the most ingenious of vs are ashamed of those additions which you deny Neither doe you name any of these ingenious people For example you say when we are charged with worshipping of images we deny it or excuse the manner of adoration but doe not condemne you for not worshipping thē But good Sir I pray you what Catholique denieth the worshipping of images what Catholique doth excuse the manner of worshipp Name the man if you can Our Diuines declare adoration to be dew and the manner how it is dew but to excuse this or deny that noe man doth noe man I meane a Catholique euer did noe man can euer doe Now for you can you haue the face to say that noe man of ours condemneth you for not adoring them this is to Sir Humphrey Doth none of our writers condemne you noe Bellarmine noe Baronius noe Sanders noe Alanus Copus noe Costerus noe Vazquez to omitt the more ancient Writers against the Iconomachi Doth noe Councel of Trent say anathema to you for denying dew honour and veneration to the Images of Christ and his Saints Sess 25. decr develiq Sanctoris imaginib Conc. Nicaen 2 act 7. Doth noe Councel of Nice say anathema to such as doe not salute holy and venerable images His qui non salutant sanctas venerabiles imagines anathema Was the acclamation of the whole Councel consisting of 350. Bishops and yet noe man condemneth you What shall a man say to you What answeare may a man make but onely to say that all this is your owne 15. The like I may say of all the rest of your fond accusations and more fond excused which you heape togeather which it would bee too long to stand answearing one by one Onely the last I cannot omitt which is that you accuse vs of flat idolatry not knowing that the Councel of Nice in the place last cited hath a special anathema for you for that very word and you take comfort that we cannot charge you with the least suspition thereof in your positiue points To which I answeare Sir Humphrey that if you marke the matter well you will haue little cause to take such comfort For it is a farr greater euill for you to be truely charged with haeresy then for vs to be charged falsely with idolatry And though the charge of idolatry against vs were as true as that of haeresy is against you yet would you not haue any such special cause of comfort haeresy coming
first made her visible which is that we desire And soe Sir you haue spunne a faire threed You would faine make your Church visible before Luther and you make it inuisible you looke well about you meane while Now that which you say next of taking away the 3. Creeds which you professe two Sacraments 4. Councels and 22. booke of Scripture without which our Church would bee a poore senselesse carcasse is most foolish for who doth speake of taking them away who doth say they are yours you will not say your selfe but you had them from vs What then doe you talke of taking them away and whereas you are bold to say that wee now stile them chaffe and new haeresies it is to shamelesse an vntruth for any man to tell but your selfe and therefore deserueth noe other answeare but that it is SIR HVMPHREY LIND'S you vnderstand my meaning Sir 21. One little thing more there is in this Section which is that whereas some of ours haue termed your religion negatiue in reguard it consisteth most in denyall of such things as we teach as they may well call it you would retort that terme vpon vs because wee deny many things which you affirme But this is not a matter of any moment For they who call your religion negatiue doe not meane that you doe not teach any positiue erroneous point but that most of your doctrine I meane that which is properly yours not taken from vs is negatiue and euen those affirmatiue propositions which you teach if you teach any are but contradictions of other things which we teach are not or may not be done In which respect they may be also called negatiue But for ours it is nothing soe for it consisteth of positiue points deliuered not by way of opposition or denyal for it was before all haeresy though it is true that it hath many negatiue propositioÌ„s and praecepts Besides out of euery positiue point a man may inferre the contrary negatiue Which yet maketh not that a negatiue as you doe in some of those propositions which you alleadge for example you make this a negatiue point that we deny the substaÌ„ce of bread to remaine after coÌ„secration whereas that is onely a negatiue inferred out of this positiue that the substance of the bread and wine is chaÌ„ged into the body and bloud of our Blessed Sauiour which is our doctrine euer was before any haeresy arose but an haeresy arising to the contrary as that the substance of bread remaineth after consecration the Church out of that positiue point deduceth this negatiue that the substance of breade doth not remaine for destruction of that haeresy But of this there is enough and of this whole SectioÌ„ wherein the Gentle Reader may see whether you Sir knight doe not deserue the name and punishment of an Haeretique by your owne Doome not hauing proued either the antiquity or vniuersality or certainty or safety of your Protestant faith out of any author of ours or euen of your owne or any shew of reasoÌ„ or said any thing to the purpose though you haue taken more liberty to abuse those three authors which you alleadge vtter such grosse falsityes then I doe not say honesty but eueÌ„ shame would giue a man leaue but which is most to bee wondered you haue laboured to proue the visibility of your Church by such similitudes as proue the contrary Which is not any praise of goodnes for you intended it not but an argument of the necessity whereto you were driuen by the badnes of your cause and a dispraise of your iudgment in that you see not what you say Of the 9. Section The title whereof is this The testimonyes of our Aduersaries touching the Protestant and the Romane faith in the particular CHAPTER IX 1. OVR Knight hauing promised to proue the antiquity and vniuersality of his faith and nouelty of ours in generall by the testimony of our owne authors Church and performed it brauely forsooth as hath beene shewed in the former chapter he professeth now in this ninth Section Chap. 9. to proue the same in like sort out of our authors in diuers particular points as iustification by faith onely the Sacrament of the Supper and Doctrine of transubstantiation Priuate Masse c. treating euery one heere ex professo and seuerally in distinct paragraphes whose methode I shall also follow in answearing of him §. 1. Of Iustification by faith onely examined 1. This point of his Protestant iustification by faith onely the Knight proueth as hee saith out of a booke published in Anselmes tyme which is called Ordo baptizandi visitandi c. Of which he citeth two or three seueral editions to fill vpp the margents with quotations and to authorize the booke more he telleth vs that Cassander saith it is obuious euery where in libraries Out of this booke he citeth a whole page and a halfe which I list not heere stand writeing out but onely I will take the worst word in it all that is which may seeme to make most against vs and for the Knight which is this the Priest is appointed to aske the sicke man whether he beleeue to come to glory not by his owne merits but by the merits of Christ's passion and that none can be saued by his owne merits or by any other meanes but by the merits of his Passion to which the sicke man was to answeare I beleeue Wherevpon the Priest gaue him councell to putt his confidence in noe other thing This is the vtmost he can say out of this booke and what is all this to the purpose For first the knight doth not shew vs any authority for this booke or that S. Anselme had any thing to doe with it nor telleth vs of any ancient edition before the yeare 1556. but onely a mention thereof by Cassâ—â—der a classical author indeede and of the first classe in the index librorum prohibitorum in an appendix alsoe to a forbidden booke falsely called Io. Roffensis de fiducia misericordia Dei then which hee could haue said nothing more to disgrace it 2. Besides he telleth vs that the Index expurgatorius of the Spanish Inquisition willeth those words of comfort as he calleth them spoken by the Priest to be blotted out which were answeare enough seing the knight is to bring vs authority which we may not except against as I told him in the first Chapter And this very alleadging of the Index expurgatorius is a manifest proofe that it is sett out and corrupted by Haeretiques in fauour of their owne doctrine De corrâ—ct lib. §. 3. 4 For otherwise the Inquisitors can not meddle with it or any other author sett out before the yeare 1515. to change or blott out any thing therein but onely where a manifest error is crept in by fraude of Haeretiques or carelesnes of the Printer Thirdly and principally I answeare that there is nothing in this that doth not stand very well being
translate them But because your intent in this place is to proue out of this Doctor that the consecration is performed not by the words of Christ but by his blessing for els I see not what you should ayme at I will bring you a place out of himselfe expressely to the contrary which is this Tolle verba Christi non fiunt Sacramenta Christi Odo Cam. exp in can Miss dist 3. Vis fieri corpus sanguinem appone Christi sermonem Take away the words of Christ and take away the Sacraments of Christ Wilt thou haue the Body and bloud of Christ made put thereto the word of Christ In which words he sheweth that all the Sacraments of Christ are performed by words soe as without words they are not Sacraments as the Catholique Church teacheth And in particular that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the worde of Christ is that whereby the bread and wine is changed in to his body Of which change and matter he speaketh most plainely a little before in this manner In specie panis vini manducamus bibimus ipsam substantiam corporis sanguinis subijsdem qualitatibus mutata substantia vt sub figura sapore prioris substantiae facta sit vera substantia Christi corporis sanguinis In shew of bread and wine we eate and drinke the very substance of the body and bloud vnder the same qualities the substance being changed that vnder the shape and tast of the former substance the true substance of Christ's body and bloud bee made Which words are no lesse euident for proofe of the reality of Christ's presence and change of the bread and wine into his Body and Bloud or transubstantiation then the other are for proofe that the change is made by force of the words Which declare what his meaning is in those words which you alleadge for the blessing as if that did cause this change For he as many other Fathers and Doctours call the very forme of consecration a benediction both because they are blessed words appointed by Christ for soe holy an end and because they produce soe noble an effect or because they are ioyned alwayes with that benediction and thanks-giuing vsed both by your B. Sauiour in the institution of this holy Sacrament and now by the Priests in the Catholique Church in the consecration of the same You haue then Sir Humphrey gotten as little by Odo as by any of the rest 20. But after all these authors you putt one in the rere who must make amends for all that the rest haue failed you in and that is one Christophorus de Capite fontium Arch Bishop of Caesarea in his booke de correctione theologiae Who indeede speaketh plainely for you in behalf of the blessing against the words of consecration if you cite him truely as a man might well make doubt if the author were otherwise allowable but because he is not I doe not soe much as looke in him but remitt you to the Romane Index where you shall find his booke by you heere cited forbidden which may be answeare enough for you and euen the arrogancy of the title sheweth it to deserue noe better a place for it is entituled de necessaria correctione Theologiae scholasticae As if he alone were wiser then all others Schoolemen putt together Besides in the words cited out of him by you in this place there is a grosse historical error which euery man may perceiue at the very first sight to let passe his theologicall errours and it is in this that he saith that in that opinion of his both the Councel of Trent and all writers did agree till the late tymes of Caietan as if Caietan were since the tyme of the Councel of Trent Whereas indeed he died aboue a Dozen yeares before the first beginning thereof And withall you doe not marke how in citing this place you are against your self For whereas you make Cardinal Caietan and this Archbishop of Caesarea your two champions against the words of consecration as if they did both agree in the same heere this Archbishop saith quite contrary that all are for him but onely Caietane Whom then shall we beleeue you Sir knight or your author 21. Now though you thought to conclude with this Christopherus a capite fontium as being a sure card yet cannot I omitt though after him to answeare heere a certaine authority which you bring before somewhat out of season out of Salmeron telling vs that he speaking in the person of the Graecians deliuereth their opinion in this manner For as much as the benediction of the Lord is not superfluous or vaine neither gaue he simply bread it followeth that when he gaue it the transmutation was already made and these words this is my body did demonstrate what was contained in the bread not what was made by them Whereto I answeare first that you mistake your termes when you call this an Opinion which is an errour of the Graecians Secondly I might answeare that this is not Salmeron's authority whom you seeme to cite but doe not indeed you citing onely for authour a french Huguenot called Daniel Chamier who also citeth those words out of Salmeron but without any the least mention of the place where they may be found Soe as Salmeron's works making 7. or 8. good volumes to looke for such a place as this without any light or direction is almost as good as to looke for a needle in a bottle of hay Yet I did looke in that part of his workes which treateth of the B. Sacrament where I thought it most likely to find this place but found it not Which notwihstanding I will not say but it may bee there for it is true that there haue beene some Latine authors that haue held that our Sauiour himselfe did consecrate not by those words but either by other words V. Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 58. Sect. 1. seq or by the power of his owne will without any outward signe or by some outward signe other then words or by these very words twice spoken Into some of which Doctrines it is like some Graecians might fall being soe prone to erre as they haue beene these later ages V. Aund though in other authors I doe not find this errour of theirs of the benediction before the words but rather the contrary Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 58. Sect. 3. that these words this is my body wherewith Christ did consecrate are not now sufficient to consecrate without certaine prayers coming after in the Canon of the Masse appointed by the Church But of this it maketh not much matter and it may be some of them soe thinke and therefore I answeare thirdly for Salmeron this is noe opinion by him allowed as you would seeme by your manner of citing him to insinuate but by him condemned of errour as your freind Chamier saith expresly citing to that purpose Salmeron's owne words also euen there where
not in a proper and strict but a large sense onely wherein as I agree with him for soe much as perteyneth to the washing it selfe soe doe I thinke that if a man reade the place attentiuely he shall find that author by that washing to meane the Sacrament of Penance in a strict and proper sense For he giueth vnto it the same power of remitting of sinnes as to Baptisme He saith it was instituted for such sinnes as men should fall into after Baptisme which he saith cannot be iterated which are the proper attributes which we teach to belong to the Sacrament of Penance Whereof that author making a long discourse I cite only these words following for a signe of his meaning Propter hoc benignissime Domine pedes lauas discipulis quia post Baptismum quem sui reuerentia iterari non patitur aliud lauacrum procurasti quod nunquam debeat intermitti For this most benigne Lord thou dost wash thy disciples seete because after Baptisme which may not bee iterated for reuerence thereof thou hat procured another lauer which must neuer bee intermitted By which it seemeth plaine he doth not meane that that washing was a proper Sacrament it selfe but that it did signify another thing which was to take away sinnes after Baptisme which was to bee a sacrament because it was to bee instituted by our Sauiour it was to bee a lauer and to haue like force as Baptisme all which sheweth it to bee a true Sacrement 13. Besids S. Cyprian you will needs bring S. Isidore with in compasse of the curse for say you he accounted of 3. Sacraments to wit Baptisme Chrisme and the body and bloud of Christ citing his 6. booke of Etymologies chap. 18. wherein Sir Humphrey according to your vsual custome you doe notably abuse this holy Father For in that place he doth not soe much as intend to speake of any Sacrament at all but his onely intent is to treat of the names of certaine feasts as the title of the chapter sheweth which is this De festiuitatibus eorum nominibus Of Feasts and their names among which hee putted Coena Dominica Our Lord's supper Which saith hee is so called because vpon that day our Sauiour did make the Pasch with his Disciples which is celebrated euen to this day as hath beene deliuered the holy Chrysme is made therein These are S. Isidor's very words neither hath hee one word more in all the chapter of any Sacrament Where then is there any mention of Baptisme nay where is there any mention of our Sauiour's institution or celebration of the B. Sacrament but onely that S. Isidore saith that the celebration of the Pasch is obserued to this day Which because it cannot be vnderstood of the Paschal Lambe giueth vs cause to thinke that by our Sauiour's celebration of the Paschal he vnderstandeth the institution of the B. Sacramēt which is now daily cōmemorated in the Sacrifice of the Masse The chiefe or most cleare mention heere is of Confirmation by the name of Chrisme as it is ordinarily signified by anciēt authors But all this that is said is not said by way of deliuering any doctrine cōcerning Sacramēts but as they haue relation to such a feast Is not this thē a notorious abuse of S. Isidor's authority But because you shall see plainely that if he accidentally or for some speciall reason make mention of those 3. Sacraments as it is like he may doe as other Fathers Isid de offi Eccles lib. 2. cap. 16. cap. 23. cap. 19. are also wont that therefore he doth not meane to limit the whole number of Sacraments to three I will putt you downe one place where hee mentioneth two more of which there may be most doubt to wit Pennance and Matrimony For Penance he maketh it a Sacrament and compareth it with Baptisme in these words Sicut in Baptismo omnes iniquitates remitti ita poenitentiae compunctione fructuosa vniuersa fateamur deleri peccata vt hoc tegat fructuosa confessio quod temerarius appetitus aut ignorantiae notatur contraxisse neglectus Lett vs confesse that as in Baptisme all iniquities are forgiuen soe all sinnes are blotted out by the fruitfull compunction of Pennance that fruitfull confession may couer what temerarious desire or ignorant neglect hath contracted Where you see how to compunction and confession ioyned together in this Sacrement he giueth the like power of blotting out sinnes as to Baptisme And for Matrimony he saith the three goods or perfections thereof are fides proles Sacramentum Fidelity ofspring Sacrament Where beside the fidelity or mutual obligatiō which hath euer belonged to Marriage before our Sauiour's tyme and still belongeth among Infidels though the obligation be not soe perfect among them he putteth downe that special perfection of a Sacrament though for this word Sacrament perhapps you may wrangle but it is but wrangling as I shal by and by shew by occasiō of S. Austines like vse of the same word But by this that hath bene said of the Fathers it is plaine that noe words can bee sufficient to declare your exorbitant bad dealing in citing the Fathers in this place drawing them with in compasse of the Councel's curse they being soe farr from it For it doth not commaund that whensoeuer a man nameth one Sacrament he shall name all or that he shall say they are seauen in number nor more nor lesse or that he shal say they were instituted by Christ But that noe man shall say against this as indeede not one doth For not one of all those you name saith that there be not Seauen or that there bee more then Seauen which is the thing that you dare Soe boldly say contrary to the most sacred authority of soe great a Councel as that of Trent then which greater is not to bee found or imagined vpon earth And this might serue for the Fathers 14. But before I haue done with them in this point I must in a word take notice of one friuolous thing whereof you make a great matter and whereby you thinke to auoid all that can bee said out of the Fathers for the proofe of 7. Sacraments which is that they vse the word Sacrament in a general signification for any sacred signe or for a mystery such like Wherein you are very copious to noe purpose For we deny it not but onely we deny that which you would build therevpon to wit that therefore they doe not at any tyme vse the word Sacrament in the strict and proper sense when they speake of our other 5. Sacramēts which you deny This I say we deny as a false fiction of yours your Ministers whereas you confesse the Fathers to vse the word Sacrament strictly and properly when they speake of Baptisme and Eucharist we shew that they vse the same word and in the same sense when they speake of the other Sacraments ioyning them with these two as I shewed before out
prouince or country 9. And heere it is to be noted further for answeare of your authorityes in this point Sir Humphrey that whereas some of our authors are of opinion that S. Paul in that 14. Chap. of the 1. to Corinth where he speaketh of prayers in a knowne tongue is to be vnderstood of the publique prayers of the Church that explication is contradicted by most of our other authours and there be many reasons out of the very text and circumstances against it as namely that the men which are heere reprehended for their ostentation of languages are the People not the Priests as appeareth by the whole epistle as I noted heere before § 3. n. 5. vpon another occasion as also because this pertaineth to women also who it seemeth did vse to speake among the rest which S. Paul therefore reprehendeth as an abuse and forbiddeth Thirdly S. Paul speaketh of the infidells coming in and being present at those their meetings and conferences Which therefore could not bee of the Church office and Sacrifice of the Masse to which Infidells were not admitted Wherefore it cannot be of the publique prayers of the Church which belonged onely to Priests to make publiquely for others in the Church But though it were soe and that some doe put themselues to more straits then they neede in interpreting S. Paul of publique prayers yet doth it not auaile you Sir Humphrey For euen those men giue a reason of difference why now it needeth not to wit because now as S. Thomas of Aquine saith People are sufficiently acquainted with the ecclesiastical rites and men know very well what is done by being present and seing though they doe not vnderstand the particular epistles and Ghospels which are seueral according to the Sundayes and holy dayes but the rest of the Masse being the same continually they vnderstād it sufficiently for exercise of their deuotion though not to satisfy the vaine curiosity of such people as you breed vp in the pride of an heretical spirit to beleeue nothing but what they see and contemning whatsoeuer they doe not see or vnderstand our people know sufficiently what the Priest meaneth by turning to them saying Dominus Vobiscum Oremus Orate Fratres and the like I say sufficiently to lift vpp their minds to Almyghty God to ioyne in their harts minds with the Priests in that prayer which he maketh publique for them as well as any learned Clarke that vnderstandeth the English of the words Soe as our authours by you cited helpe you not a whit in this matter 10. But now because you say this prayer in the vulgar tongue was vsed by the praecept of the Apostles and practise of the ancient Fathers I would know of you where this precept is expressed either in scripture or out of scripture in any author of credit I doe not find soe much as any shaddow of a praecept in scripture S. Paul in that epistle to the Corinthians which your men for the most part stand vpon doth not condemne that Prayer in an vnknowne tongue as you doe for he both saith it is good though he preferre the guift of Prophecy before it and also he alloweth the vse of it but wishing withall that some other should interpret it as you see the Councel of Trent wisheth Pastours and Curats to doe of the Masse and mysteries therein contained Where then is the precept commanding a knowne tongue or forbidding an vnknowne tongue and this I say supposing for disputations sake two things which are neither of them soe to wit that S. Paul there speaketh of publique prayer of the Church-office and that the Latine Greeke or Hebrew tongues are rightly called vnknowne tongues or any way comprehended vnder that appellation in S. Paul 11. Now for the practice of the Fathers which you speake of but name none I would gladly know Sir Humphrey what Father you haue whose authority or example you can bring for your selfe in this matter name him if you can We shew you Fathers and learned men of many seuerall nations and of different tymes vsing the Scriptures onely in some one of these 3. holy languages For example Italians Spaniards French German English Polish Africans and others vsing the Latine and diuers ancient Fathers of seueral countries as S. Cyprian S. August in Afrik S. Ambrose in Italy S. Prosper in France Others in other countries citing the very words which we to this day vse in our Masse Duran de ritib. lib 2. cap 31. Bell. lib. 2. de verb. Dei cap. 15. 16. as Sursum corda Habemus ad Dominum and the like whereof you may see more in our authors And yet being soe destitute of all proofe for your selfe and soe ignorant of ours which we haue in aboundance you can talke soe cōfidently of the praecept of Apostles and practize of Fathers But you will say you bring Lyra Belethus Gretzerus c. to proue what you say Whereto I answeare noe such matter for first they speake not a word of any praecept Secondly some witnesse only the practise of that tyme yet withall giuing the reason why it neede not be soe now others speake nothing that way for example Io. Belethus euen as you cite him saith onely that in the Primitiue Church noe man was to speake in tongues vnlesse some body were to interprete from whence he saith is growne our custome when the Ghospell is read to expound it which is quite against you for he acknowledgeth speaking of languages which you deny and expounding which according to you will not be needfull Others againe speake but doubtfully as S. Thomas of Aquine Dicendum forte saith hee It is to bee said that it may be that in the Primitiue Church Benedictions were vsed in the vulgar language whom yet you make to speake absolutely and certainely Thirdly though some say the prayers of the Church were vsed in a language vnderstood by the people yet noe man saith that that language was any of the ordinary vulgar languages or indeede other then Hebrew Greek or Latine Wherefore all the authors you can bring though you should bring ten for one in this manner will nothing auaile you 12. Now for your citation and translation of such authours as you bring I could find many faults but I passe them ouer onely Bellarmine I cannot lett passe because you abuse him somewhat more grosly for you bring an obiection of his out of one place and an answeare out of another there being noe connexion or correspondence betweene the answeare and obiection as you make it thus It may be obiected say you out of him that in the tyme of the Apostles all the people in diuine seruice did answeare one Amen And this custome continued long in the East and West Churches as appeare c. Which is true but nothing to the present purpose for men may answeare Amen to the publique prayers of the Church without their being in a vulgar language Neither is it the thing
most stronge argument of antiquity that it is the practise of the Catholique Church tyme out of mind and of consent that noe man is found to haue spoken against it but onely knowne Haeretiques such as the Waldenses who were the first impugners of Indulgences Bell. lib. 1. de indulg cap. 1 therefore you are still out of your bias when you thinke to proue the nouelty of our doctrine by our want of testimony of antiquity For though we haue such testimony for superaboundant proofe yet it is enough that such a thing is thaught and practized in Catholique Church without any memory when it beganne for that is S. Augustines rule continually to proue a thing not onely ancient but euen Apostolical 10. But now to come to your authours in particular you bring Durand in the first place saying that there can be little said of certainty concerning Indulgences ap Bell. lib. 1. de indulg cap. 2. Whereto I answeare that it is true Durand doth not speake soe constantly and resolutely of the threasure of the Church in as much as it consisteth of the satisfaction of Saints whereon Indulgences are partly grounded but he is farr from any haeretical and pertinacious denial thereof much lesse of Indulgences for supposing them as a thing most certaine he disputeth Theological questions of them as other Diuines of his tyme did and making this the first question Dur. in 4. dist 20. q. 3. an aliquid valeant indulgentiae whether Indulgences auaile any thing after the manner of Schooles he putteth two arguments against them in the first place and then cometh with his argument Sed contra agreeing for the most part with his conclusion and agreeing expresly in this place he saith thus In contrarium est generalis consuetudo doctrina ecclesiae quae contineret falsitatem nisi per indulgentias dimitteretur aliquid de poena peccatori debita On the contrary is the general custome and doctrine of the Church which would containe falshood if some thing of the punishment dew to a sinner should not be forgiuen by indulgences and then hauing sett downe his resolution that there cannot be much said of certaine because neither the Scripture maketh mention of them nor some holy Fathers whom he there nameth yet he concludeth that in speaking of Indulgences the common manner is to bee followed and soe goeth on with other questions per quem modum valeant ex qua causa vaeleant quis eas possit concedere in what māner they auaile out of what cause who cā graunt thē c. nay and for the treasure of the Church though by way of theological dispute in one place he make some doubt of it yet in others he speaketh plainely and clearely in these words Dur. 4. dist 20. q. 3. Est in ecclesia c. There is in the Church a spiritual Treasure of the Passion of Christ and the Saints who endured much greater torments then their sinnes deserued and therefore the Church may out of this treasure communicate to one or more what may bee sufficient to satisfy for their sinnes either in part or in whole according as shall please the Church to communicate this treasure more or lesse which are nothing els but the communication of the paine of Christ and the Saints to vs to satisfy for our sinnes Wherefore indulgences auaile by way of solucion or payment in as much as by Christ and his Saints the paine dew to vs is payd So farr this author most clearely truely Catholiquely though after againe he somewhat doubt of this treasure as I said before in as much as it consisteth of the satisfactions of Saincts Now for the very place which you alleadge you committ a fault in making it seeme as if he said the ancient Fathers in general did not make any mention of Indulgences and that he did name S. Ambrose S. Hilar. S. Aug. and S. Hierome onely for examples sake whereas it is farr otherwise For presently after he nameth S. Greg. and saith of him that he did institute indulgences at the Stations in Rome Soe as it is plaine he spoke onely of those 4. not of all the Fathers in general And soe much for Durand 11. As for Alphōsus à Castro another of your authors he denieth not all testimony of Scripture as none of the rest doe but onely plaine expresse testimony and though he also confesse the vse of Indulgences not to haue beene soe much in those ancient tymes as since yet he alloweth of them soe farr as to condemne any man for an Haeretique that shall deny them these are his words Alph. a Castr de haeres lib. 8. verb. Indulgent Verum etsi pro indulgentiarum approbatione S. Scripturae testimonium apertum desit non tamen ideo contemnendae erant quoniam ecclesiae Catholicae vsus a multis annorum centurijs tantae est authoritatis vt qui illum contemnat haereticus merito censeatur But though there want open testimony of Scripture for approbation of Indulgences they are not therefore to bee contemned because the vse of the Catholique church for many hundreds of yeares is of soe great authority that whosoeuer contemned the same is worthely esteemed an haeretique And againe in the same place Apud Romanos vetustissimus praedicatur illarum to wit indulgentiarum vsus vt ex Stationibus Romae frequentissimis vtrumque colligi potest Among the Romans this vse of Indulgences is said to be most ancient as may be somewhat gathered by the most frequent Statiōs at Rome Looke you Sir Humphrey what a witnesse you haue brought for your selfe Doe you not see how new he maketh this Doctrine of Indulgences Confessing euen the vse of them to be most ancient and of many hundred yeares standing nay doth he not in the same place acknowledge that S. Gregory the great and first Pope of that name did graunt some Indulgences which is aboue a thousand yeares Doe you not heare how much he giueth to the Church acknowledging the practise thereof to bee of soe great authority that whosoeuer denyeth the truth of a thing soe practised is worthily to be counted an Haeretique What thinke you now of your selfe to be called haeretique out of your owne mouth as it were that is out of your author's mouth whom you bring for you For Castro his authority then though it had beene more for you then it is in this matter of Indulgences yet you had beene better haue let it alone then to haue it with such a condition The like a man may say of euery author you bring heere for the same purpose but that it is needlesse to stand soe long vpon examining euery one in particular 12. Now after such good authorityes as you bring against Indulgences you thinke you may with authority prate very freely of the Popes selling of Indulgences and bringing money to his owne coffers by them but to that I neede make noe other answeare but that it is such
riffe raffe stuffe as your Ministers are wont to eeke out their books and sermons without being able to shew any bull of Pope or testimony of good author of any Indulgence soe granted which though you or they could yet were is not to the purpose noe more then your prophane iest out of Guiciardin of playing a game at tables for an Indulgence For what suppose that were true might not a man thinke you tell as good a tale of some Protestants who in their potts haue made soe bold with almighty God himself as to drinke an health vnto him and were not this a fine argument to proue that there is noe God besids Guiciardin's history translated by Coelius Secundus Curio which I suppose you to cite for it is most like you are noe Italian is forbidden in the Romane Index that Curio being an Haeretique of the first classe But passing from your merriments you tell vs seriously that you will not say it was a strange presumption for a Councel to determine an vncertaine Doctrine vpon the Popes infallibility and opinion of Schoolemen but you venture to say it is a weake and senselesse faith that giueth assent to it without authority of Scriptures and consent of Fathers Your meaning is by a fine rhetorical figure to say it is presumption by saying you will not say soe but Sir Humphrey I will goe the plaine way to worke with you and tell you it is intolerable presumption for you suppose you were a man of learning to take vpon you to censure of presumption soe great a Councel as that of Trent wherein the whole flower of the Catholique Church for learning and sanctity was gathered together the splendour whereof was so great that your night owle Haeretiques durst not once appeare though they were invited and promised to goe and come freely with all the security they could wish and for such a fellow as you to make your selfe iudge thereof what intolerable presumption is it it is presumption with you forsooth for a Councel to define a point of faith vpon the perpetual and constant beleife and practize of the Catholique Church vpon the common consent of Doctours being both of them sufficient rules of faith of themselues there being withall sufficient testimony of Scripture in the sense which it hath euer beene vnderstood by Catholique interpreters and yet it is not presumption for you without Doctour without Father without Councel without Scripture without any manner of authority to goe against all this authority 13. Now whereas you say it is a senselesse and weake faith that giues assent to doctrine as necessary to be beleeued which wanteth authority of Scriptures and consent of Fathers I answeare you doe not know what you say it sheweth plainely you haue not read one of those Fathers of whom you soe much bragg who all agree that there be many things which men are bound to beleeue vpon vnwritten tradition whose authorities you may see in great number in Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 7. but for consent of Fathers it is true it is requisite because we haue not the tradition but by consent of Fathers but this consent of Fathers is noe more required to bee by their expresse testimonies in writing then in the Scripture it selfe For where doe you find that the holy Fathers did know beleeue or practize noe more but what they did write or that any one did write in particular all the whole beleife of the Catholique Church the Fathers did in their writings as the Apostles did in theirs that is write of this or that particular matter as the particular occasion of answearing some Haeretique or instructing some Catholique did require and therefore mentioned noe more then was needfull for that end But the consent of Fathers is most of all proued by the practize of the Catholique Church of the present tyme seing that practize being without beginning cannot otherwise haue beene but from those that haue gone before from tyme to tyme and though you make a difference yet certainely it is the same of the consent of Catholique Doctours in the present tyme as it was of holy Fathers in former tymes who were the Doctors of those tymes and as they were Fathers not soe properly in respect of those tymes wherein they liued as of succeeding ages soe the Doctors of these tymes are Fathers in respect of those that shall come after them Neither can the consent of Doctors in the Catholique Church more erre in one tyme then another the auctority of the Church and assistance of the Holy Ghost being alwaies the same noe lesse in one tyme then another Tert. de praescr cap. 28. And Tertullian's rule hauing still place as well in one age as another to wit Quod apud multos vnum inuenitur non est erratum sed traditum That which is the same amongst many is noe error but a tradition The common consent therefore of Doctors and particular Churches is alwaies a sufficient argument of tradition and antiquity and consequently a sufficient ground for a Councel to define a matter of faith against whatsoeuer nouel fancy of any Haeretique that shall take vpon him to controll the same This I doe not say that wee want sufficient proofe of antiquity for any point but to shew that we neede it not soe expresse in ancient authors but that the very practize of the Catholique Church is sufficient to stopp the mouth of any contentious Haeretique noe lesse then in ancient tymes when that proofe of foregoing Writers could haue noe place For soe S. Paul thought he answeared sufficiently for defence of himself and offence of his contentious enemy 1. Cor. 11. when he said Si quis videtur contentiosus esse nos talem consuetudinem non habemus neque ecclesia Dei If any man seeme to be contentious we haue noe such custome nor the Church of God And soe much more may we now say of our long continued customes of many hundreds of yeares Wherefore your exception Sir Humphrey against the Councel of Trent for defining this matter of Indulgences without such testimony of scripture antiquity as you require is vaine as that is also false which you heere againe repeate that an article of faith cannot be warrantable without authority of scriptures For faith is more anciēt then Scripture for to say nothing of the tymes before Christ faith was taught by Christ himself without writing as also by his Apostles after him for many yeares without any word written and soe it hath beene euer the common consent of all holy and learned men that as noe lesse credit was to be giuen to the Apostolical preaching then Writing soe noe lesse creditt is still to be giuen to their words deliuered vs by tradition then by their writings the credit and sense euen of their writings depending vpon the same tradition among whom the cleane contrary principle is as certaine and vndoubted as this of yours is with you
that it was the image of a man he knoweth not who Which if it had beene Christ's or any Saint's he would haue knowne whose it was neither would he haue called the image of Christ or any Saint the image of a man and then he maketh a comparison or likenesse betweene the hanging of that picture and the picture of Christ or some Saint Which sheweth plainely both that it was not Christ's nor any Saint's and also that it was the custome to hang the images of Christ and his Saints in the Church It is also an idle senselesse expression of yours when you say a vaile representing the image of Christ For the vaile was not the picture of a picture and therefore did not represent the image but represented the man You leaue alsoe out those words nescio cuius erat I know not whose it was By all which is discouered both your corruption and the probability of this answeare suppose these words were Epiphanius his whereas indeede they are not and this is the third answeare which you onely take notice of but without taking notice or answearing any of the reasons alleadged by any man for the same Whereas Bellarmine alleadgeth noe lesse then 9. all very good and substantiall ones and some of them moral demonstrations as that those words are a peece added at the end of the epistle put to noe man knoweth how nor with what connexion another is that S. Hierome hauing translated that Epistle whereto these words are added maketh noe mention at all of them or any such vaile a third is that in the 7. general Councel where the Iconoclasts or image-breakers alleadged all that euer they could out of any author they neuer mentioned any such authority as this of Epiphanius which sheweth that either the words were not there or at lest that they had not any shaddow of probability against the images of Christ and Epiphanius the Deacon in that Councel proueth two such places to haue beene corrupted by Haeretiques and inserted in the works of S. Epiphanius more may be seene in other authors for this shall serue to discouer your honest and vpright dealing with Epiphanius Sir Humphrey and shew what cause you haue to cōplaine of our eluding or reiecting the Fathers 8. But yet I shall discouer the same more going thorow with the rest of the Father's testimonies the next of which is S. Cyprian's touching tradition thus From whence is this tradition for the Lord commanded vs to doe those things which are written to which you say Bellarmine maketh answeare that S. Cyprian wrote thus when he thought to defend his owne error and therefore it is noe meruaile if he erred in soe reasoning it is true Sir Humphrey Bellarmine maketh this answeare and it is a very good one and of it selfe doth serue the turne For it is most true that S. Cyprian there writt in defence of rebaptization which he maintained and because he saw it could not be impugned by the written word but onely by vnwritten tradition which S. Stephen Pope then vrged against him he reiected that tradition and fled to Scripture wherein the badnes of his cause put him to that hard shift For proofe whereof I will but onely aske you whether you thinke S. Cyprian was then in an error or not I presume you will not deny but he was otherwise you must grant that we may baptize such as haue beene baptized in your Church and are conuerted to ours or that you must baptize such of ours as fall to yours because you may say yours is noe haeresy but rather ours But whether soeuer you say of these two you I suppose will not nor indeede can grant rebaptization for it is contrary to your beleife practize Well then it is an error Likewise this error is not otherwise maintained but by denial of vnwritten tradition and cannot be ouerthrowne but by holding them and therefore it must follow of necessity that it is an error to deny tradition Or thus if this rebaptization be an error and that it follow of that principle of holding to the written word onely then is that principle false For it is an ordinary rule in Logicke that if a conclusion be false or impossible the premisse or principle from whence it followeth must of necessity be false or impossible and this rule is grounded vpon a certaine axiome that ex vero nihil sequitur nisi verum Of truth there followes nothing but truth Soe rebaptization being an errour as you cannot deny that principle of the onely written word from whence it followeth and wherevpon it dependeth must needes be false Whereby you may see Bellarmines argument to be good and your owne to be of noe force Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 11. But besides Bellarmine added some authority to his reason thereby giuing it a great deale of credit which is that S. Aug. doth answeare and confute that whole Epistle of S. Cyprian's out of which these words are taken Soe that you might haue said that S. Augustine doth elude and reiect S. Cyprian's authority as well as Bellarmine but that for shame me you could not be soe bold with S. Augustine as you might be with Bellarmine though both said but the same thing 9. The 8. testimony is S. Chrysostomes touching priuate Masse in these words It is better not to be present at the Sacrifice then to be present and not to communicate Bellarm. say you maketh this answeare that Chrysostome spake this as at other tymes by exceeding the truth when he would onely incite men frequently and worthily to communicate Where first you wrong Bellarmine in strayning his words to the worst sense and as I may say truely mis-translating them For whereas he saith that S. Chrysostome spake this by excesse per excessum are his words you say by exceeding the truth which is false For it is not all one to say that a man speaketh by excesse and by exceeding the truth For there is a figure in Rhetorique called hyperbole or excesse Which whosoeuer vseth is not said presently to exceed the truth or speake vntruelly as you would make Bellar. say of S. Chrysost but onely to speake by hyperbole or excesse wherein the intent of the speaker is not to be taken soe precisely to the vtmost of his words but with a graine of salt as we say because by that manner of speach a man intendeth onely to signify the greatnes of the matter of which he speaketh whither it be commending or discommending And it is certaine some men vse this figure more then others and specially those who are more eloquent and who are to frame their discourse to the mouing of a popular or vulgar auditory such as S. Chrysost was therefore for answeare of the matter Bell. saith well that this Saint being greatly moued with his peoples coldnes in deuotion and backwardnes in coming to the holy mysteries spake by excesse to make them more apprehend the illnes thereof as we
drawne from authority for pauperis est numerare pecus It is the signe of a poore man to number his Cattell Thus you say of Salmeron in a few lines discouering a great deale of fals-hood For first it is false that you produce Fathers against the Conception of our Lady That being noe controuersy betweene you and vs but onely among our selues wherefore if there be any such consent of Fathers it is not you that produce them but our owne authors you onely out of the great good affection you beare forsooth to our B. Sauiour are ready to embrace any opinion that may more derogate from the dignity of his blessed Mother but what doe crowes looke for but carren Secondly it is false that Salmeron acknowledgeth any such vniforme consent of Fathers against him or that he makes any such answeare to them It is true indeede he saith the contrary part alleadge for themselues the testimonies of the ancient Fathers and specially of Saint Augustine Which he answeareth another way but for those which he answeareth as you say here they are onely later authours or Doctours as shall after appeare Thirdly it is false that hee acknowledgeth any vniforme consent euen of these later Doctours against himselfe for he opposeth a farre greater multitude of Doctours against them vsing that saying of Elizaeus the Prophet 4. Reg. 6.16 plures nobiscum sunt quam cum illis there be more with vs then with them Where then is the consent Fourthly it is a cunning tricke if not a false for you to make this answeare seeme Salmeron's onely whereas he professeth to haue it out of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas of Aquine citing two or three seuerall places of Saint Augustine but it is well at lest that though you contemne their authority yet you doe not doe it soe openly but couertly onely vnder the shaddow of a IESVIT This therefore might be answeare enough for you to shew that we doe not reiect or elude the Fathers seing we haue our answeares out of them but to explaine the meaning of Salmeron's saying that the place of authority is weake a little more I will alleadge S. Thomas of Aquine his obiection and answeare he obiecteth that the science of Diuinity cannot be argumentatiue 1. p q. 1. ar 8. and 2. because saith he it must argue out of authority or reason not out of authority because according to Boetius the place of authority is most weake not out of reason because then faith hath noe merit to this he answeareth that it argueth out of Diuine authority and saith that Boetius is to be vnderstood of humaine authority which he also saith is the weakest kind of proofe Soe as by this Salmeron's meaning is plaine not to reiect authority but onely to preferre reason before humaine authority as it is most plaine that it ought to be preferred Besids Salmeron giueth other answeares as that he opposeth also a contrary multitude of Doctours he opposeth the force of reason he opposeth the consent in a manner of the whole Church concluding therefore that though some of the cōtrary part number a great many authors some 200. some 300. some but 15. yet the very nūbering sheweth them to be few according to that saying Pauperis est numerare pecus it is onely for a poore man to number his cattell whereas a rich man's cattell or other wealth is not soe soone counted insinuating thereby that his authors are soe many that they are not to be numbred and indeede he hath almost as many Vniuersityes kingdomes commonwealths religious orders and other communityes for him as the other side hath single authors By all which it is apparent that there is noe such absurdity in his saying as you would haue it seeme for he slighteth not authority but preferreth onely greater authority before lesse and reason before both which noe man in his right witts can deny to be very good reason where then was your reason Sir Humphrey when you read Salmeron it was straying after some haereticall fancy 15. By this then that hath beene said in this whole chapter it may appeare how like your selfe you make that vaunting conclusion to your reader that by what you haue heere said he hath heard the proofe of the Romish witnesses in the chiefe points made good by the testimonies of the Fathers themselues For disproofe whereof I should vrong my Reader 's iudgement if I should stand bringing other arguments then those which I haue done already in answearing euery particular place which you bring Wherein I haue shewed not one Father of all these to be against vs vnlesse it be in some one or two points wherein they are as much against you and in things which both you acknowledge for errours and are contradicted by the common consent of other fathers wherein I hope my deeds will waigh more with any man of iudgement then your words Chap. 13. and soe I passe to another section Of the 13. Sect. which is thus entituled by the Knight Our aduersaries conuinced of a bad cause and an euill conscience by razing of our records and clipping their owne authors tongues CHAPTER XIII 1. IN the later end of the former section the Knight saith that many in our owne Church haue spoken freely and truly in particular points of doctrine with his and against our tenets For which the Inquisitours haue passed their censure vpon them blotting out such lines or leaues as make against vs and now in this section he nameth some authours in particular To which I say that for the former part the Knight saith very true there be and euer haue beene some light new fangled people who giue too much liberty to their wandring thoughts and penns suffering themselues like chaffe as they are to be blowne hither and thither with the wind of inconstancy And such people they are for the most part that become haeretiques though some also remaine in the vnity of the Catholique church yet soe as they suffer some things to escape which deserue censure Wherefore the Catholique church to preuent the danger and harme which may come by such bookes taketh the best order that can be in Catholique countries that noe such bookes be printed till they be reuiewed and approued not to containe any thing contrary to faith and good manners but because there haue beene many such writings published this last age by occasion of heresy and liberty which came therewith to the great preiudice of the Catholique faith there hath beene a course taken for the restraint of all such not onely writings of Haeretiques but euen of Catholiques which haue any tange of haeresy either vtterly forbidding them or correcting them soe as they may be safely reade without danger of faith and good life And this kind of care hath euer beene vsed in the Catholique church though more or lesse as the necessity of tymes hath beene greater or lesse Act. 19.18 Soe we see in scripture it selfe some that
and dying in our present Romane faith may be saued or not Wherein though the Knight be verily persuaded we cānot alleadging Whitaker's authority for the same and saying that the best learned of his Church haue beene farr from granting saluation to any Papist being withall soe zealous and earnest in this beleife as he wisheth it farr from the thoughts of good men to thinke soe yet by his Worship's leaue it is the iudgment of many great men of his Church nothing inferiours in that which he taketh for learning and goodnes to Mr. Whitaker or any man els of his opinion for example Mr. D. Barrow saith he dareth not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists sith the learneder writers doe aknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Church of God If the Church of God then certainely Sir Humphrey a man may be saued therein Mr. Hooker saith the Church of Rome is to be reputed a part of the howse of God a lymme of the Visible Church of Christ you in the beginning of your booke bring this Hooker's authority acknowledging vs to be of the family of IESVS CHRIST in as much as we beleiue the articles of the Apostles Creede which are the maine parts of the Christian faith wherein we still persist as he confesseth beleeuing then the maine points and being of the family of IESVS CHRIST there can be question in his iudgmēt but we may be saued Mr. Bunny saith we are noe seueral Church from them nor they from vs and that neither can one of vs iustly account the other to be none of the Church of God We may then as well bee saued as you and we are as much of the Church as you D. Some saith the Papists are not altogether aliens from God's couenant for in the iudgment of all learned men and all reformed Churches there is in Popery a Church a Ministery a true Christ c. and saith he if you thinke that all the Popish sort which dyed in the Popish Church are damned you thinke absurdly and dissent from the iudgment of the learned Protestants Loe you Sir Humphrey doe not you thinke absurdly and dissent from the learned Protestants in denying vs saluation Doct. Couel saith thus We affirme them of the Church of Rome to be parts of the church of Christ and that those that liue and dye in that Church may notwithstanding bee saued 8. I could bring others to the same purpose as D. Field and Dr. Morton saying that we are to be accounted the Church of God whose words may be seene in the Protestants apology tract 1. Sect. 6. Sub. 1. 2. 3. but these may serue the turne I hope fully to disproue your assertion Sir Knight for heere be 7. authors alleadged whom your Church of England hath euer held for good and learned men From whose thoughts it was not soe farre as you would haue it to thinke we might be saued but rather soe deepely grounded that they auerre it constantly and say also that it is the iudgment of all learned Protestants and that it is absurd to thinke otherwise Doe you not then see Sir Humphrey what a Linder you shew your self vpon one Witakers authority to determine a matter soe peremptorily against the iudgment of soe many great Doctors of your owne side and to say that it is the iudgment of the best learned Protestants and that it is farre from the thoughts of goodmen to thinke otherwise what may a man thinke by this you doe with our Catholique authors and fathers whom you neither haue soe much to doe with nor vnderstand soe well nor care soe much for as you doe for these Sage men forsooth of your owne the pillars of your Church and writing in your owne Mother tongue whereof it is to be presumed you can skill a little more then of Latine But now for the maine matter or argument which you intended to answeare how is it answeared You see soe many learned Protestāts thinke we may be saued liuing and dying in our faith without your limitation of inuincible ignorance and meerely in reguard we are a true Church the family of Christ the howse of God holding the foundation of faith and that the points of controuersy are not of such necessary consequence whose number and authority though perhaps it be not sufficient to reforme your iudgment yet to vs it is sufficient to ground this argument that since Protestant Doctors make noe doubt but we may be saued in our faith and noe Doctor of ours saith soe of your faith it is out of doubt the Safer way to embrace ours the force of which argument you goe not about to auoide otherwise then by denying that to be the opinion of learned Protestants which being proued to be so manifestly the argument still hath his force and the more because you cannot answeare it And soe I come to your last Section Chap. 18. Of the 18. Section the title being this Prouing according to the title of the booke by the confession of all sides that the Protestant religion is safer because in all positiue points of our doctrine the Romanists themselues agree with vs but in their additions they stand single by themselues CHAPTER XVIII THE substance of this section is contained in the title and in nothing but to turne the Catholiques argument mentioned in the former section the other way for the Protestant side but yet soe ill fauouredly that it may be turned backe againe with much more disaduantage of the Protestant cause For by it a man may proue any haeresy that euer was nay Iudaisme and Turcisme to bee a Safer way then the Catholique faith or euen the Knight's Protestant faith He beginneth then with putting the case we may be saued and then laying for a ground that it is Safer to persist in that Church where both sides agree then where one part standeth single in opinion adding withall that if he make not good the title of his booke to wit that he is in the Safer way hee will reconcile himself to the Romane Church creepe vpon all fower to his Holinesse for a pardon And then falleth to proue it in this manner that because Both agree saith hee in the beleife of heauen and hell and that we stand single in the beleife of Purgatory and Limbus puerorum we are not therefore in soe Safe a way soe of the merits and Satisfactions of Christ all agree that men are to be saued by them but wee stand single in the addition of the Saints merits and our owne satisfaction and soe forward of the number of Sacraments images prayer to Saints the like Which is the whole discourse of this Section 2. Whereto I answeare first that that his ground of Safety which he thinks he taketh from Catholiques is folish impertinent and without sense as se setteth it downe For thus he saith it is the Safer way to persist in that Church where both sides agree then where one part